August 10, 2007
In Defense of Garden Walks, Feminine Love, and Shallow Songs
My last post reassured me that some people read my blog!
Now, for some follow-up.
My friend, Greg Linscott, immediately posted a thoughtful challenge. I am aware of Miles’ explanation for his song and I don’t feel that changes anything. I am also quite sure that Greg’s walk with the Lord is far more steadfast and intimate than mine and I certainly do not want to be trite with his arguments. My own walk with the Lord is one that is intensely personal and sometimes too difficult for me to analyze properly. I feel too often like William Carey did one time when he said that his soul was a garden of weeds. It’s a garden, but there are weeds. Therefore, at the outset of my answer I want to be very clear that I do not want my words to be construed as a critical analysis of the private fellowship of believers who differ with me on this song. If I came across that way in the past post (and in this post) it is because I think too many critics of the song (and others like it) are – perhaps unwittingly – making critical judgments of the private emotions of redeemed saints, an area that is literally unknowable to anyone except God the Father. With that said, I would like to respond to Greg’s and other’s responses to my defense of the song.
1. I do not defend or promote “In the Garden” as a good congregational hymn. In fact, I think I was quite clear about that. This song, in my opinion, simply should not be sung congregationally. The reasons for this opinion can be discussed at another time, but that which is not good in one place may be good in another place. “In the Garden” is useful to some people as a simple expression of pure thoughts. I think the same goes for a lot of contemporary Christian music. While I would strongly resist the singing of “In the Garden” in our church service (as I do 99.9 percent of all CCM), I do not pretend to anathematize the song as banal, mawkish, and useless sentimental syrup in every situation.
I think it is too narrow to imply that no song is a viable Christian song unless it qualifies as a hymn. In a perfect world everything would be Christian, but even then not everything could be sung in church. As shocking as it may be to some sensibilities, I have been moved to my knees in private devotion while listening to some of Mozart’s music. Some of his music, written for the worst of reasons, is quite useful in my ears and heart to express my own feelings to myself of what I hope to be true about what I feel toward God.
That last sentence was as confusing as I meant it to be. Sometimes I think the feelings aroused by art or music are not necessarily authentic, but are more representative of holy aspirations than actual reality. While many brethren are rightly stirring up suspicion about the emotions and feelings that music elicits, I think it is going too far to invalidate any feelings that any person may have on the basis that the instrumentality is flawed. “In the Garden” may be a lame song, but a holy person may enjoy holy emotions upon hearing it. In the same way, Handel’s Messiah is wonderful music, a chorus of which makes kings stand, but thousands have stood by the power of its emotion who will burn in hell.
That shallow songs elicit feelings is not disturbing to me. I am not foolish enough to think that they are truly worship, but they are devotional in the sense that they remind me of the way things should be, and this reminder may happen spontaneously as I listen to music through my headset, in the car, or in church or when I see a beautiful landscape.
More disturbing yet to some of my friends will be my free and open admission that even some secular pop songs arouse within me what I think to be pure feelings. The song Minapendawe as sung by the Flemish pop singer, Helmut Lotti, moves me emotionally to pray for the starving people of Africa. The rhythm is powerful, the song beats its way into my psyche, and I am moved. My emotions evoke fervent prayers, a painful sense of my inadequacy to make any difference in this world, conviction for my own ingratitude, and a sense of urgency in my ministry. I think (you may judge otherwise) that these are good things.
Do I think Mozart or Nimapendawe ought to be sung in church? Of course not. Thus, my first point is two-fold:
Just because a song cannot be sung congregationally or even appreciated universally by the Church of Jesus Christ does not mean that it should be ridiculed and condemned as useless as a private expression of personal feelings and, secondly, aroused emotions do not have to be banished as forbidden fruit even if all they do is remind us of how things should be.
2. Second observation. I find it amazing that some people who emphasize the fact that thought should drive feeling actually imagine more about the song than is actually said. A lovers’ escapade? A secret rendezvous? Puh-leeze. Get your imaginations out of the gutter and read the words! “I come to the garden ALONE!” If that speaks of romance it sounds too much like my dating experience when I was in college!
But my imagination doesn’t have to work hard to understand pure thoughts and feelings even with the third verse:
I’d stay in the garden with Him Though the night around me be falling, But He bids me go; through the voice of woe His voice to me is calling.
Granted, I’m being a little facetious, trying to have fun with this. But even this verse of “In the Garden” is easy to sing with a pure imagination. I, for one, know what it is like to enjoy alone time in private communion and the reluctance I feel to go into the “real world.” I am too much like the Demoniac of Gadara (Mark 5:18-19) that wanted to stay close to Jesus, not eager to be sent back to his hometown, but “he bids me go.” I’m monastic by nature and I could stay all day in the study with my Bible, books, and prayer until “the night time around me be falling.” But there’s work in the village.
Besides, I don’t get why people see this as a nighttime lovers escapade. It begins in the morning and goes until the the evening. Again, read the words!
3. On feminine love. Please note: I am speaking not of females here because I think it is obvious that we are all agreed that in Christ there is neither male nor female. I am speaking specifically of “feminine love.”
There seems to be the notion that affection that is distinctly male is the only kind of affection worthy of God. Yet, God created man in His image: “male and female created He them.” The woman has capacity of feeling that is different than the man’s. The image of God on earth would be incomplete were it not for the presence of the woman. As I understand Christians from the past, there seems to be a healthy respect for the feminine capacity of feeling that is distinct from that which is natural to men. Even C.H. Spurgeon quoted favorably Madam Guyon, the female mystic, as accurately expressing feelings and heart emotions of a pure love.
To be feminine does not mean to be sappy and sentimental. But a pure feminine love that is spiritual is one that will manifest a total dependence, complete abandon, and emotional clinging. A woman loves by abandoning herself. A man loves by giving himself. Thus, the Song of Solomon depicts a woman that utterly abandons control of herself and clings with passionate dependent emotion to her lover.
Read Spurgeon’s devotional on Song of Solomon 1:2:
For several days we have been dwelling upon the Saviour’s passion, and for some little time to come we shall linger there. In beginning a new month, let us seek the same desires after our Lord as those which glowed in the heart of the elect spouse. See how she leaps at once to Him; there are no prefatory words; she does not even mention His name; she is in the heart of her theme at once, for she speaks of Him who was the only Him in the world to her. How bold is her love! it was much condescension which permitted the weeping penitent to anoint His feet with spikenard—it was rich love which allowed the gentle Mary to sit at His feet and learn of Him—but here, love, strong, fervent love, aspires to higher tokens of regard, and closer signs of fellowship. Esther trembled in the presence of Ahasuerus, but the spouse in joyful liberty of perfect love knows no fear. If we have received the same free spirit, we also may ask the like. By kisses we suppose to be intended those varied manifestations of affection by which the believer is made to enjoy the love of Jesus. The kiss of reconciliation we enjoyed at our conversion, and it was sweet as honey dropping from the comb. The kiss of acceptance is still warm on our brow, as we know that He hath accepted our persons and our works through rich grace. The kiss of daily, present communion, is that which we pant after to be repeated day after day, till it is changed into the kiss of reception, which removes the soul from earth, and the kiss of consummation which fills it with the joy of heaven. Faith is our walk, but fellowship sensibly felt is our rest. Faith is the road, but communion with Jesus is the well from which the pilgrim drinks. O lover of our souls, be not strange to us; let the lips of Thy blessing meet the lips of our asking; let the lips of Thy fullness touch the lips of our need, and straightway the kiss will be effected.
Whether one agrees with Spurgeon’s hermeneutic or not, I wonder how many are going to roll their eyes at Spurgeon for “feminine love.” I think Spurgeon is right to admit to “varied manifestations of affection by which the believer is made to enjoy the love of Jesus.” Some of the varied manifestations may be “feminine,” and we who are male are not unwise to develop the more delicate tenderness of the weaker sex when it comes to our spiritual intimacy with Jesus. My imagination has not gone wild here. Read biographies.
Samuel Rutherford, the Westminster Divine, who is famously remembered for his Lex Rex and his influential leadership was so “feminine” in his expressions that, frankly, I feel a little bit uncomfortable with his “manifestations of affection.” As uncomfortable as I feel, however, I am not ready to relegate his manifestations of affection to the forbidden because they are “feminine.” I hardly dare to think that I have even begun to know Christ as Rutherford knew him.
It is remarkable to me how the women loved Jesus. He was a Teacher that could be surrounded by women and maintain His credibility. They served Him in a way that men could not. Or would not. The redemptive plan of God has a feminine twist. Even though the woman was first deceived, the glory of grace was displayed in that it was to a woman that Jesus entrusted the first announcement of His resurrection. It is a beautiful scene, I think, forever recorded for us in Scripture that the female who first witnessed the resurrection was told not to touch Him, but to go tell the others of His resurrection. For certainly she wanted to do even as the demoniac of Gadera; she wanted to cling to Him and never let Him go. And wherever we tell the Gospel, Jesus would have us be sure to tell the story of a woman who poured her perfume on His feet because only a woman could respond with such utter abandon to the Man of her Life. We need more feminine emotion in our Christianity.
Perhaps some Christians would want to linger in the holy quietness of the study, but are pressed by Providence to go. The notion that this pictures lovers caught in the act is, to me, perverse. Those who talk most about imagination seem to have very little of it.
Once again, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with those that say the song is weak, that it is inappropriate for congregational worship, and that it is flawed, even shallow. But I think it is a good song because, despite the critics, the Church of Jesus Christ seems to see in it more pure emotions than those of secret lovers. There is nothing manifestly evil about the song. There is nothing unbiblical. That thousands of Christians find in it a manifestation of true Christian feelings (or feelings that they wish were true) is not a problem to me.
I choose to look along the beam and not merely at the beam.
This entry was posted in the following categories:
Bob,
thanks for the thoughts…the general critique that I have found of the song is regarding its use as part of a church’s hymnody. Were Mac, et.al. condemning it for noncorporate use also? Or said differently, Mac is quite clear about how he views it—does that include for any personal, devotional use?
Thanks for helping us think…On some of it, I will have to continue to agree to disagree…I am in no way enough of a wordsmith to properly send up my opposing arguments at this point. Greg has led the way admirably in that…
But, we all desire an intimacy with the Triune God—I do wonder if you took on ‘popular Calvinists’ and their ‘shriveled’ coldness too strongly. There is a sense that perhaps you approached these “bookish experts” in a similar fashion that you perceive them to have approached this song? Maybe I am seeing too much there…
Posted by: Sam Hendrickson at August 10, 2007 06:38 PMBob,
also, re: my post at the other In the Garden article, I want it made clear that I did not intend to state my thoughts as though you were casting personal aspersions on anyone who disagreed with you. That did not come through clearly in my remarks to you…
Bob,
I just want to go on record to say I didn’t like the song before bashing it was popular, before I knew much about MacArthur, and when I still called myself a Biblicist, not a Calvinist.
Probably a hangup from too many nursing home song request times at BJU. I think some of those folks were into Flemish pop singers too.
Posted by: Pearson at August 10, 2007 07:24 PMPastor,
I usually don’t make it all the way through your posts without my head trying to spin all the way around, however your first post on this subject I found very interesting. Of course since I am a public school teacher, shop teacher of all things, that was educated by the public school system I probably didn’t understand the post.
At the risk of finding Sunday that the ushers have instructions to tie me up and burn me at a stake for being a heretic, I was wondering when I was a child I drank milk all the time to grow but now I eat vegetables, fruits and meat. But sometimes I still drink a glass of milk with my dinner. Does this mean when I go to the doctor I should look for a pediatrician?
Perhaps you should go to the Local OfficeMax store and buy a ream of copy paper. Take it home and stand on it. At least you will be 499 times closer to God then everyone else. I know you will understand.
See you when you get back
Steve
Posted by: Steve Johnson at August 10, 2007 07:49 PMOnce again, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with those that say the song is weak, that it is inappropriate for congregational worship, and that it is flawed, even shallow. But I think it is a good song because, despite the critics, the Church of Jesus Christ seems to see in it more pure emotions than those of secret lovers.
Bob,
I’m not sure why you think my walk is much closer than yours, but anyway…
1. Why do we assume that the Church sees “more pure emotions”? Because it is well loved? Do we also draw the same conclusions because many professing people used “God Is My Co-Pilot” bumper stickers? What about how many well-meaning professing Christians accepted the “curse of Ham” rationale?
2. I am confused. How can something be “flawed,” “shallow,” and “inappropriate for worship,” yet “good”? What does the word “good” mean?
3. Small quibble- the song doesn’t talk about morning till night. It talks about someone who is willing to stay forever- or until nightfall, at least, but is bade to go “through the voice of woe…” Also, the person in the song does come “alone,” but does hear a “voice… falling on (her) ear.” Hence the imagery of the rendezvous.
On a seemingly unrelated note- I would be interested to see what you thought of the painting here. Do you think this portrait has the capability of being valued by a believer who “looks along the beam” as opposed to looking at it?
Posted by: Greg Linscott at August 10, 2007 09:37 PMBob,
This is one of those times I’m glad we can experience unity without unanimity. ;-)
Others make more nuanced arguments than I am capable of. I’ll simply expand on a point lilrabbi made. Is it possible that the older saints who are drawn to songs such as this are, despite all their undeniable spiritual maturity, holiness, and godliness, have had their religious affections distorted by the culture in which they’ve been immersed for all their lives?
That possible (likely?) reality doesn’t make anyone in our generation who recognizes this culture and rejects it superior. Far from it. Certainly distance gives us a perspective they couldn’t have had on the fruits of revivalistic theology-methodology-hymnody, and certainly generations that succeed us will have similar perspectives on our blind spots, which may be far worse.
I guess I think it’s a shaky foundation for an argument to judge the worth of a song by the emotional reaction it inspires. “In Christ Alone” certainly fosters certain feelings in my soul, but I don’t think the fact that feelings are stirred is evidence to its worth.
When you write . . .
“That thousands of Christians find in it a manifestation of true Christian feelings (or feelings that they wish were true) is not a problem to me.”
. . . I guess I have to disagree. I think the sensibilities of those who judge it so are flawed, albeit sincere. In one sense they are victims of the tastes others have cultured in them. As I am, and as we all are. I’m quite sure my sensibilities of worth are more jacked up than I can begin to imagine, and I’m realizing my personal responsibility to reshape them.
In any case, we agree on the congregational singing moratorium, and if we could get everyone to agree on that, I suspect the song would die a quick and quiet descent into obsolescence.
Posted by: Ben at August 10, 2007 10:47 PMSteve, you’re quite gifted! I understood the cryptic message! Looking forward to seeing you, Sheriff.
Posted by: bob at August 11, 2007 12:22 AMPearson, my wife can’t stand the song either! Others, good comments and challenges! I’m teachable on this one. Any counter arguments are only meant to sharpen my thinking. I may be converted before I leave NZ in which case I’ll leave the song in the Southern Hemisphere!
Posted by: bob at August 11, 2007 12:24 AMIn case anyone in this discussion needs some background, here’s a link to the author’s explanation of why/how he wrote this song: http://www.webedelic.com/church//inthegarf.htm
1. As mentioned at the beginning of this website, the song was basically commissioned to be “sentimental,” and for comfort and dying people. I think it’s fulfilled that purpose.
1. The 3rd stanza is getting a lot of controversy. I just think it’s Mary saying that she’s WOULD HAVE stayed with Jesus by the tomb all day long, but Jesus sent her to go tell everybody that He rose.
I am puzzled by the last two lines of the third stanza. The punctuation of line three indicates that the second half of line three is a complete sentence with the fourth line. But I dont’ understand what it means. Here it is in case you are confused by what i’m saying:
I’d stay in the garden with Him,
Though the night around me be falling,
But He bids me go; Through the voice of woe,
His voice to me is calling.
3. I think we have to be careful how we talk about emotion; it’s a personal thing in some ways and very critised when displayed b/c not all viewers are feeling the same emotion as the one expressing it. I will say that I was raised in a totally great family, but my parents were not at all sentimental, esp my mom, and i was always told that love is not a feeling it’s what you do. We didn’t hug or display affection really. I was fine with that; it made saying good-bye very easy and is probably why it’s not too emotionally hard for my family to be separated. But now I am married and have two kids. In all honesty, I really struggle with FEELING positive, loving FEELINGS for my family. I really want that. I want to feel love. Part of love is a feeling, and that’s OK and good. I want to feel some sentimental things. It is very hard for me. So let’s be careful how we dump on that.
When I’m old, I will probably really like this song. It’s intimate and comforting and feeling.
Posted by: anne sokol at August 11, 2007 12:43 AMSpeaking as a Brit who only knows this song via the chorus played by elderly organists on elderly organs, and by R C Sproul’s criticism of it - I would simply suggest that we thank God that when we consider sentimental songs we have the choice of several beams to look along.
If one beam gets in the way of our view we can discard it and choose another. An old moss-covered bucket at the homestead, for example :^?
blessings, Alan
Posted by: Alan Davey at August 11, 2007 01:01 AMThanks, Steve, for that comment, especially about the milk. I was going to comment yesterday, but was too irritated. :-) There is an element of “duh” common-sense that is often missing in a lot of these academic comments. The ability appreciate something for a specific function or even to appreciate only certain aspects of that thing, provided it is not unBiblical, seems to be a basic part of Christian discernment. Even just to recognize the fact that other Christians appreciate something that you do not seems to be foreign to some.
I dislike this song for personal/ family reasons. It brings back painful memories that overwhelm most of the enjoyment that I may have received from it. But the Christian residents at my nursing home love it. It reminds them that, even in the loneliness and many trials of aging, Jesus walks with them. His love is personal, and it beautifies the ugliness of the indignities that they now face. They are looking forward to seeing Him soon. So I sing that song for them joyfully, recognizing the encouraging work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.
Thanks, Pastor, for blogging. Thanks for not blogging when we need you to be studying or praying. I appreciate the fact that you show balance in using this tool.
It reminds them that, even in the loneliness and many trials of aging, Jesus walks with them. His love is personal, and it beautifies the ugliness of the indignities that they now face.
Karyn,
I have to ask- how do you know this? Is this something these people have actually told you, or what you imagine they must be feeling?
Posted by: Greg Linscott at August 11, 2007 12:35 PMCouple Questions:
1. Are there any Bible examples of sentimentality, good or bad?
2. Bob mentioned Song of Solomon in his post, but no one has commented on the application of this book to these kind of emotions. Why?
Posted by: Anthony Hayden at August 11, 2007 12:42 PMAnthony,
the first question—Biblical examples of sentimentality—i’m not sure it can be answered. we’d have to define it first. like the woman washing jesus’ feet with perfume or Jesus weeping at Lazarus’s death—how would we know if there were aspects of sentimnetality here? are there positive and negative uses of sentimentatliy? we’ve been seeing it as pretty derogatory here, but i dont’ think it’s always inappropriate to be sentimental.
Posted by: anne sokol at August 11, 2007 01:44 PMBob,
I thought this was a provocative post simply by the extreme example you defended. I don’t like the song, but it has nothing to do with the evil of sentimentality, emotion, or any expressions of feeling in songs. Nor do I have a problem with words in a song deemed shallow by some. Many of the Psalms were not intended to be deep theological polemics, but often the simplistic cry of someone heart in prayer or praise. Nor do I think all songs have to be hymns.
I am tempted to now like the song since you said MacArthur is against it because I don’t care for MacArthur. However, I will say my reason for disliking the song is because it represents the overall feminization of American pop Christianity that is everything wrong with American Christianity. It’s simply a feminine song and not even a deep feminine song. It paints the picture of Jesus with the 80’s hair cut parted down the middle, rosy cheeks and a sweet motherly voice whispering words of encouragement. Reminding me, “You are my own”. “He speaks, and the sound of His voice, Is so sweet the birds hush their singing”. Yuk.
Jesus doesn’t walk with us or audibly talk with us, nor does he have a voice so sweet birds want to listen. The point is that even poetic pictures of God and Jesus must be truthful pictures not the personal imaginations of an overly sentimental relationship. If we make Jesus out to be and do something He isn’t, that seems to be a problem. Watch Talladaga Nights sometime, and hear the table scene where they are praying to the baby Jesus and you with get a mock picture of what many in our culture see Christianity to be about.
Anyway, it is just an opinion.
Well, Greg, those weren’t the residents’ exact words. I would have put quotes. However, there have been many other words and comments used in requesting this song that I compressed with my own opinion into that statement. One lady told me that even when life is too long, she is reminded of Christ’s love and presence through this song. In the years that I have worked at the nursing home there have been many, perhaps fifty, conversations regarding this song, so I have formed an opinion of why many of them enjoy it.
Posted by: karyn at August 11, 2007 09:34 PMAfter reading the comments on this post and the previous, I have to say I am shocked. I have sung or heard this song countless times (though it’s not one of my favorites) and never once did I think of it as an expression of romantic, feminine love for Jesus.
I don’t want to assume the worst from the words of others, but I feel like saying “Get your mind out of the gutter.” Reminds me of the little boys in Sunday School who snicker every time the teacher referred to Balaam’s (donkey).
Posted by: Cameron at August 12, 2007 08:31 AMCameron,
There’s a difference, though- in this case, no one is snickering on this end.
To counter your illustration- think of it this way. If a man came home and greeted his wife whistling, “COME HERE, GIRL!” while slapping his lap, do you think she would object? IF she did, would the husband be able to credibly object by saying, “Honey, get your mind out of the doghouse! I love you deeply- far greater than I would ever love any dog. That greeting captures for me the great enthusiasm I have to see you, how I look forward to you rushing to my arms, your loyalty and companionship…”
Even if he was sincere, don’t you think it would be good for someone to set the man straight- for both his sake and the sake of his dear wife?
Posted by: Greg Linscott at August 12, 2007 04:01 PMGreg,
First, let me apologize to you and others for the unkind implications of my comment.
Also, the point of my analogy was not that there was humor to be found, but the imposing of one meaning over words and/or songs that is different from their original thought.
Now, here’s my thinking on this song:
*Original intent - the author does not seem to have intended any romantic undertones.
*Straightforward interpretation - I and many others (of relatively average intelligence, perhaps) do not get that “loving feeling” when we sing or hear this song. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a legitimately straightforward interpretation of the song does not necessarily include thinking of a romantic rendezvous.
In your illustration, the whistle, pat, and call of “Here, girl,” are clearly expressions of affection for a dog. They can only have one meaning and interpretation. The words of this song, in both intent and interpretation, do not require (or in my opinion, imply) a romantic context.
Therefore, I have to conclude that any such context is imposed on the song by the hearer.
Posted by: Cameron at August 12, 2007 04:51 PMI’m not offended, Cameron- but I do appreciate the mention.
Original intent - the author does not seem to have intended any romantic undertones.
Now, here is where I take exception. Try taking “Son of God” out of verse one and look at the song as objectively as you can. I contend that the whole song (lyrics and music) is romantic/sensational- the author clearly harnesses the type of music and lyrics of the same style as say, “Beautiful Dreamer” or a Gershwin ballad (“Someone To Watch Over Me” or “My Funny Valentine”). It may not seem as obvious to us because the song is so dated, but there is an obvious similarity (which is why I think the “straightforward interpretation” could be missed by those of us who aren’t familiar with romantic music of the era).
OK. I’ll be the first to admit that I am only vaguely familiar with the romantic music of the era, so I accept that could explain why I don’t see it. However, I do find it interesting that, at least in my experience, ITG is best loved by the “senior saints” who would be familiar with the era and its music. I honestly don’t know anyone (of any generation) who has expressed the idea that this song seemed romantic or produced romantic emotions when they sang it.
This topic raises a number of further questions (more discussion than debate) I’d love to pose and discuss, but Monday morning leaves me without the time or energy to engage further. I’ll step back on this one, still unconvinced.
Posted by: Cameron at August 13, 2007 07:40 AMSome on this post or the other have spoken as though the anti Garden people are being too analytical. Which is kind of a hoot, since Bob’s two posts are analytical re: this song. There is a GREAT need to analyze and discern what music we should use for corporate worship, and the music to which our families should listen. One of the delightful things is that we are examining songs for something other than a syncopated beat, etc., or some of the other stuff that has come our way in the past. I know some will say what is occurring in terms of examination/analysis is not enough, (and for some, our efforts will NEVER be good enough, and may be mocked), but I am glad that even though he is wrong :), Bob has spent some time and mental effort on this. Some might accuse him of trying to rationalize the keeping of a song he wanted to keep, but his attitude did seem to be that of trying to dispassionately look at the merits of this song. I have to disagree with his conclusions however…thanks, Bob.
Posted by: Sam Hendrickson at August 13, 2007 08:09 AMHowever, I do find it interesting that, at least in my experience, ITG is best loved by the “senior saints” who would be familiar with the era and its music.
Cameron,
You mean kind of like the people of our day who don’t see a problem with, say, Christian Rap?
Posted by: Greg Linscott at August 13, 2007 08:58 AMGreg,
No. I was actually thinking of some of the godliest, most discerning, most “ultra-conservative” Christians I know. Now, their appreciation for ITG might call that in to question for some, but I am curious as to why the very people one would expect to disapprove of what this song is accused of, don’t.
Which piques my curiosity. Is there any evidence of any contemporary critique of the song? Did anyone at the time it was written find its words or music romantic? Seems to me if it followed the popular music of the day it would have been even more obvious then.
Posted by: Cameron at August 13, 2007 10:18 AMWhenever I think of “In the Garden”—a tune that brings back fond memories of my childhood in fundamentalism—I am reminded of what Leonard Payton (see his “Reforming Our Worship Music” for more) once told me about Twinkies. They have little nutritional value; yet we like them. We needn’t try to justify it. We should refuse to make them a staple of our diets, lest we get sick and die. But, instead of trying to explain why they are good, we should just say, “I like them,” and leave it at that. The alternative is to create a theological dogma that says “Twinkies are a sin.” Of course, since we’re talking about “In the Garden,” a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich fits better than a Twinkie, at least for those of us who can’t help but hear a certain someone and the Jordanaires whenever we hear “I come to the garden alone.”
The Twinkie thing breaks down if you are a diabetic, as the cream-filled cake would be doing direct harm. Similarly, music that glorifies depravity cannot be Twinkie music.
I think the critical reason why “In the Garden” cannot work as hymnody is that it speaks of a relationship with God that is (so far as the lyrics take us, anyway) imaginary, that exists apart from a clear response to God’s Word, apart from which there is no “walk with God.” Those of us who know that could say, “Yes, but . . . ‘He speaks’!” But hymnody has to be more specific, more dogmatic, more catechitical.
Posted by: Aaron D. Wolf at August 13, 2007 05:20 PM‘catechitical’ Nice word, Aaron. It is now on my to use list. :)
Posted by: Anthony Hayden at August 13, 2007 06:02 PMWow. I can’t keep up with this conversation while on the other side of the world! But Aaron Wolf practically says what I think about the song. It’s good, I think, as a Twinkie is good but definitely should not be regular staple and never at the banquet (congregational worship).
Yet I would like to investigate further the question of imagination. No one really has dealt with my first post that essentially gave a “sanctified imagination” of the song. Nor have I seen yet a substantive answer for my defense of “Feminine love.”
While some would want to lean on 2000 years of church history to defend their views of emotions, I can’t help but think that church history is mostly filled with great men of God who viewed the Song of Solomon as an allegory of the relationship of Christ and the Church and they did not hesitate to use that “romantic” language in the discourses. When I get home I’ll try to find the message where I am quite sure C.H. Spurgeon prays, “kiss me with the kisses of your lips.” Or, several Puritan authors that talk about Christ laying beside us as a tender lover.
Frankly, I’m not comfortable with that imagery. But I wonder if “to the pure all things are pure.” I, for example, can’t help but wondering about the imaginations of people who insist that ITG is a lovers song. And as much as they may argue that there is objective processes by which we may determine whether ITG is syrupy or not, nothing has been shown to prove it. In other words, if I imagine ITG to speak wonderfully of my devotional time with God, why is that less true than another’s imagination of a lovers escapade?
Granted, the song is obviously weak because of the lack of “specific, dogmatic, and catechitical” language. I have always thought so. But the private appreciation of that song by someone with an uncontaminated imagination is completely feasible.
In some countries young men walk down the street holding hands. In our culture we have been so contaminated by the homosexual agenda that we cannot but immediately think negative thoughts. In their culture they are innocent and pure. Do they need Americans to sneer at them for holding hands and tell them how perverse they are?
I dont’ think so.
In the same way, I think people privately enjoy ITG in all purity.
Thinking out loud. . .
Posted by: bob at August 13, 2007 06:06 PMBob said, “The song is a good song. . . It is no mystery to me why so many Reformed churches lie cold dead within a couple of generations when it is assumed that the embracing of the objective precludes all that is subjective.”
As a blog this is simply an opinion that opens one up to other opinions. The discussion here isn’t whether the song should be sang publicly, but whether ITG is a “good” song. Strong words are spoken against those who don’t like this song which is fine. It just opens up strong defense by those Reformed believers who can’t stand the song.
I clarify my position. I think ITG is an enjoyable and entertaining song. It brings sentimental value as many of the goodies-but-oldies bring. Songs such as “There is Honey in the Rock my Brother” when I run across it on the radio I may stop and be reminded of the old days. My wife doesn’t understand why I like to watch the Christian station sometimes when everything is so cheesy. For me it is like rubber necking on a car wreck. I am entertained and drawn to the wreck, but I wouldn’t call that a good thing.
ITG as a “good” song would mean I would actually sing and teach it to my kids or have them listen to it with me and I would not, simply because the picture created of Jesus in my opinion is false. I want my kids to understand a Jesus of love, but not a Jesus’ whose “voice is like the birds”. I would rather listen to a secular song from U2 or Evanescence that paints a more accurate picture of the gospel or Jesus, than a “christian” song that creates what I see as a false picture of Jesus and his relationship with us.
Posted by: Brent at August 16, 2007 12:58 PMThis song is very rarely sung at my (very conservative) church, except perhaps on Wednesday nights when requests are sometimes taken.
But I have to say, I’ve never gotten a “romantic” vibe from the song. I really just thought the lyrics were a metaphor for a close relationship with Jesus as friend and companion.
I had to chuckle, though, because thinking about the song reminded me of my Baptist preacher dad who got a kick out of some of the quirks in song lyrics. Like, who in the world is the “Andy” in this song? “Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me, Andy tells me I am his own…”
Or how about the song, “Until Then”? “…but until then, with joy I’ll carry on”? Who is this Joy that you’re carrying on with?
(Okay, I’m ducking now…that’s really corny, but it used to make me smile.):)
Just so you know, I was away from the ‘net for a bit, but I added some of my thoughts here:
http://greglinscott.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/chicago-17-in-the-garden-and-subtle-damage/
Posted by: Greg Linscott at August 26, 2007 06:29 PM
