Learning from Methodist Hymnals, Elitists and Common People – Part III

This is the third in a series on Methodist hymnals. Read part I here and part II here.

In 1929, Abingdon Press published a book by George Herbert Betts of Northwestern University entitled The Beliefs of 700 Ministers and Their Meaning for Religious Education. Betts sent an extensive questionnaire to ministers and seminary students of the Chicago area for the purpose of determining whether ministers were still committed to the church’s historic teachings, or whether they were adjusting to modern learning so that the church needed to base its ministry on new truths and understandings.

Most of the responses came from seven denominational groups: Baptist, Congregational, Episcopalian, Evangelical (the group that became E.U.B. and then United Methodist), Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and another category of all others.

The questionnaire consisted of 56 affirmations. We mention several. Jesus’ death on the cross was the one act which made possible the remission of man’s sins. Eighty-five percent of the Baptists believed so, but only 20 percent of Congregationalists. Sixty percent of Methodists affirmed the statement. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Ninety-two percent of Evangelicals said yes, compared to 74 percent of the Methodists (the second lowest). All men, being sons of Adam, are born with natures wholly perverse, sinful and depraved? Fourteen percent of Congregationalists said yes, as did 61 percent of Evangelicals, and 26 percent of the Methodists.

The 200 seminary students who responded were far more liberal than the ministers. Seventy-one percent denied or were uncertain about the substitutionary atonement; only 13 percent accepted the belief in total depravity (compared with 53 percent of the ministers).

The study was done at a time when many, at least those in mainline denominations, believed that the fundamentalists-modernist controversy was over in America and the modernists had won. With the rising influence of modernism, many in the established denominations called for new revisions in Christian education, in seminary education, and the doctrinal statements.

As early as 1906, the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South had called for a new statement of faith with a revision of the Articles of Religion. Wilbur Fisk Tillett of the Southern Church worked with Francis McConnell (later bishop McConnell) of the M.E. Church in calling for a new authoritative statement of faith for Methodism. By 1935, E.B Chappell, editor of church school materials for the southern church in his book Recent Development of Religious Education in the Methodist Episcopal Church South, castigated earlier Methodist leaders, who lacking “in the scholarly equipment which might have enabled them to discover the larger meanings of their theological position, had led the church in ‘erroneous opinions’ that were a serious hindrance to the growth of the church.” The “erroneous opinions” were total depravity, blood atonement, and the necessity of radical conversion. By the mid-1920s every seminary in both the M.E. Church and the M.E. Church South had declared their orientation as “modernist.”

It is possible to argue that those caught up in the modernism of that age could be labeled “institutional elitists.” They were a chosen few who evidently believed that they alone knew what was best for the church—modernism and progressive enlightenment—and that they were called upon to bring their new insights and truths to the church at large. It is possible also to argue that this is not dissimilar to what is happening today. We have our modern-day version of the institutional elites who want to push the church into a progressive new re-interpretation of Christian faith despite the established teachings of the church universal and despite the beliefs of ordinary persons in the pew.

This expressed itself 100 years ago into the hymnal authorized by the 1928 M.E. General Conference, supported by the M.E. Church South and the Methodist Protestant Church, and published in 1935. The hymnal was introduced to the church with rave reviews. The Hymn Society of America gushed, “It was new words for a new day.” This meant it was in tune with science and modern culture and was committed to modernism and the new social order.

Thus, the number of Wesley hymns was reduced from 558 in the 1848 hymnal to 56 in the 1935 hymnal. Sections on “Need for Salvation,” “Warnings and Invitations,” “Christ’s Ascension and Reign,” “Judgment,” “Retribution” and Heaven” were eliminated (sections on “Original Sin” and “Hell” had been removed from earlier hymnals). New sections included “Kingdom of God,” “Service,” and “Brotherhood.” Themes of redemption were de-emphasized and formal worship received new focus. Thus the salvation hymn, “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing,” that had from Wesley’s day been #1 in Methodist hymnals was replaced with a new #1, the worship hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy.” The Virgin Birth (“offspring of the virgin’s womb”) was deleted from Wesley’s “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.” And because modernists were loath to refer to Jesus Christ as God, the last line in “For the Beauty of the Earth” was changed from “Christ, our God to thee we sing,” to “Lord of all, to thee we raise.”

The church’s ritual was changed significantly. The service of baptism omitted the opening phrase which had been part of the church’s ritual even back into Anglicanism: “…forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin…” in favor of a new phrase, “…forasmuch as all men are heirs of life eternal…” It also removed references to “redeemed by the blood” and learning the Apostles’ Creed and the catechism. Adults were no longer asked to affirm the Apostles’ Creed. New members were no longer required to respond to the question: “Do you believe in the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures as set forth in the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church?”

There were, of course, many new hymns. These were the “new hymns for the new day.” While a few of these hymns have carried over and are still sung today, at least 109 hymns written in the previous 75 years that appeared in the 1935 or 1964 official hymnal did not make it into the 1989 hymnal. None would be considered gospel or evangelical hymns. Taken individually, none is terribly objectionable. The poetry is good, the music uplifting. One is impressed, however, that they represent Christianity without a cross. There is no mention of blood or tears or Calvary. Our Lord is seldom referred to as “Jesus,” “Savior” or “Lamb of God.” More likely he is “Master,” “Carpenter,” “Man of Galilee” or “Master workman of the race.” Instead of images of heaven or “glory by and by” there are phrases like “brighter hope,” “earth shall be fair,” “hasten the perfect day,” nobler life,” “kindlier things.” Key words are noble thoughts, truth, beauty, courage and bravery. I heard a feminist once describe these hymns as “hairy chest theology.”

An example:

“These things shall be: a loftier race Than e’er the world hath known shall rise With flame of freedom in their souls  And light of knowledge in their eyes..…New arts shall bloom of loftier mold, And mightier music thrill the skies, And every life shall be a song, When all the earth is paradise.” (#512, ’35).  

And YET … YET: Historic Methodism is not easily replaced. The influence of Wesley was there, in that hymnal, even with only 56 of his hymns. The hymnal could not omit: “His blood can make the foulest clean…” or “My God is reconciled, his pardoning voice I hear…” or “Come, sinners to the gospel feast,” or “O Love divine, what hast Thou done?…” And the salvation gospel songs were too much a part of the church life to be relegated to the archives. Twenty-eight of those mostly Methodist hymns were included in a section labeled “Songs of Salvation.”

The truth is, I, for one, loved the 1935 hymnal. It is the hymnal I grew up with and used for the first 30 years of my life. Despite the modernist changes the gospel still permeated that hymnal. And the church of the 1930s and 40s and 50s—at least the people in the pew—still held to the historic faith. The camping program in my North Indiana Conference in the 1950s and 60s was enrolling 3,000 senior high schools and 1,500 junior high schools who were being presented with the gospel message. Commitment nights felt like revival meetings. The denominational Board of Missions and its Board of Evangelism were evangelical in orientation. Churches still held evangelistic meetings. The Church was emphasizing temperance. It lifted up the importance of the family. It still observed Mother’s Day.

When the church authorized the present UM hymnal in the 1980s, it tried a new approach. The hymnal would not be entrusted to a small group of professional musicians and bureaucratic elitists, but would seek to be open to ordinary church members and what they desired in a hymnal. The responsible church agency would not be the Role and Status of Women (who submitted a petition) or the Board of Discipleship (which also submitted a petition) but the Publishing House, which did not wish to advance an ideology but only wanted a hymnal that would sell. Extensive research was conducted on what churches were really singing. It might be said this was the first official hymnal which reached out to ordinary church members. Hymns like “It Is Well With My Soul,” “Victory In Jesus,” “What Can Wash Away My Sin,” “It Is Well With My Soul, “ and “Because He Lives,” which cannot be found in any of the other mainline hymnals, were included in the UM Hymnal.

It is most interesting that while those who have disaffiliated from the United Methodist Church have created long lists of reasons for dissatisfaction with the UM Church, the hymnal is not on any of those lists. A number of churches which are disaffiliated have kept their UM hymnals (when it is possible), even though the hymnal published by Seedbed, Our Great Redeemer’s Praise, is also a great hymnal.

As for George Bett’s 1929 Abingdon Press book which argued that the church should revise its creeds and redirect its doctrinal teachings because the future was with modernism—let it be said that Betts was simply wrong. The mainline denominations to which about 75 percent of his ministers belonged, have, over the past 100 years, been imploding. One survey noted that while denominations like the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), Presbyterians, Disciples, and Presbyterians once made up about 75 percent of the American Protestant world, that figure would now be less than one-third. As for Methodists, which in Bett’s study were the 2^nd most liberal of these denominations, they would now rank among the more conservative. United Methodists members (not the seminaries or bureaucracies or clergy) still identify as conservative more than liberal, not only in matters of doctrine, but also socially and politically.

It is for this reason that some of us still hold out hope for the United Methodist Church. This will depend on actions such as whether the church can reclaim and outwardly teach and preach its historic doctrines, whether the  evangelical constituency can be affirmed, on whether the African conferences can be accepted as equal partners, and whether we can redirect the focus of the seminaries.

We wait to see.

Riley B. Case is a retired United Methodist clergy member of the Indiana Conference who has for many years authored articles for the Confessing Movement. His articles are published in the Methodist Voices series appearing on Juicy Ecumenism, the blog of the Institute on Religion & Democracy.