Christmas Carols, Part Two

 

Here we are, yet again, with a second volume of evaluating the theological content of Christmas Carols. I know, its risky ground. Many people would join Tevye the Dairyman in crying "Tradition! Tradition!" even though hymnwriters of long ago were no more freed of theological error than song writers of the modern era. Yet others would hold some degree of prejudice toward the older carols and relish in the new and modern, which creates a completely new set of questions regarding theological content, as society tries to drift away from scripture into prosperity gospels, word of faith gospels, and other non-scriptural gospels.

But it is important to note that, as Paul said in his letters, we're not here to bring legalism into the church by dictating what is right or wrong concerning holy days. Some people set apart a certain day as holy to the Lord, others regard all days alike, and each should be convinced in his own mind. And the same goes for carols as it does for the holy days that the carols are about.

All I mean to do is bring about thought and reflection. Christmas is one of the most commercialized times of the year. Its also one of the few times some people ever grace a church pew. To which point it is in our interest to be the most theologically solid we possibly can be during this time. And so I am simply stating how I am convinced in my own mind regarding the theological value of these carols. And if what I say convicts you to let go of a few songs or makes you more strongly convinced of their value in your own mind, it will be what it will be, and so be it.

As I stated in Part One, each volume will consist of ten well known and highly common songs. Rated 1-10, based only on my evaluation of the theology, not rated according to personal music tastes.

And I will take requests! If you don't see a carol that you think out to be considered a carol, shoot me a message or leave a comment, and I'll give my thoughts on it in a future edition!

Oh Come, Oh Come, Emmanuel, translated 1861 (10/10)

The hymn has claims that its origins are over 1,200 years ago, in monastic life in the 8th or 9th century, but the modern words and the music of "O come, O come, Emmanuel" actually developed separately. The Latin text is first officially documented in Germany in 1710, whereas the tune most familiar in the English-speaking world has its origins in 15th-century France. 

Now, personally, I used to strongly dislike this carol. It says "Rejoice! Rejoice!" and yet the tune felt so sombre and gloomy. But as I thought about it more, I began to see it in a different and beautiful light. I took into account scriptures telling us to rejoice in tribulation, to have hope in the midst of trials, to count it all joy when we face persecution. In this light, Oh Come Emmanuel is still a mournful song in tune, but the words are full of hope. The carol says to me "we are in a dark time now, yet even as we mourn, we hold fast to this hope. We can sing of rejoicing because we know our Messiah will reign sovereign.

That being said, in actual analysis of the lyrics, they are theologically accurate.

What Child Is This, written 1865 (10/10)

In this carol, the author poses several rhetorical questions and then proceeds to answer them. One might well see these questions as being posed by the shepherds minds as they ran to Bethlehem, pondering the words of the angels. "What child is this?" "He is Christ the King." "Why does he lay where the ox and ass are feeding?" "It is the Word, born into the most humble and lowly of stations, silently pleading for the hearts of sinners."

The First Noel, published 1823 (5/10)

This carol, although published in the early 1800's, possibly has Cornish origins somewhere between 1300s to 1500s. The word "Noel" comes from the early English word "Nowell", which comes from the French word "Noël", which comes from the Latin word "Natalis", which ultimately means "day of birth".

In other words, "The first Noel the angels did sing" is basically saying "this is the first birth in history that had angel choirs singing about it". Which is a fair and reasonably accurate point.

That having been said, there are a few somewhat questionable lines of thought. 

in fields where they lay keeping their sheep, on a cold winter’s night that was so deep.

If you read Part One, you probably know where I'm going with this. Its improbable that shepherds would be out in the fields in the middle of a cold winter night. And it was deep? What is a deep night? 

Were they sitting in deep snow? Not likely. Were they sleeping deeply? If they were, they were failing as shepherds. Anyway, let's continue to verse two.

They looked up and saw a star
shining in the east beyond them far;
and to the earth it gave great light,
and so it continued both day and night.

We really aren't given a lot of detail about the star or the magi. We aren't told if the starlight was visible by day, though its mildly improbable. We aren't told if the shepherds saw and followed this star. Though as close as they were to Bethlehem, the star likely wouldn't have been of much directional value. However, as far as the magi were concerned, the star was in the western sky. Also, the song specifies three wise men. Whereas scripture only speaks of three gifts, saying nothing of the number of magi.

Overall, the song isn't explicitly theologically wrong, persay, but it does seem likely historically inaccurate.

Joy To The World, written 1719 (10/10)

Penned by Isaac Watts as an interpretation of Psalm 98, Joy to the World has become one of the most published carols in North America. It is also one of my favorite carols. And honestly? It's so good that as far as I'm concerned, it barely even needs to be considered a Christmas carol. Its perfect for use all year round. Especially since Watts didn't actually write it to be a Christmas carol. He was writing about Christ's Second Coming.

O Come All Ye Faithful, printed 1751 (9.8/10)

The origins are highly questioned, and attributed to many different sources. But the earliest printed form was a book by John Francis Wade. Though he made a living as a copyist of hymns he found in libraries, so the song is not necessarily his.

There's nothing outright theologically wrong with this hymn, the only question I raise is the second verse.

Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning

I already noted in my first volume, that a morning birth is unlikely. Also born this happy morning. Is Christ born on any random morning you happen to sing this song? Seemingly not. Still, fairly minor.

Angels from the Realms of Glory, printed 1816 (10/10)

Theologically accurate. I though it was interesting to note that this song has been set to several tunes, including "Regent Square" by Henry Smart, "Lewes" by John Randall, and "Wildersmouth" or "Feniton Court" by Edward Hopkins. "Regent Square" is the most common tune in America, while the United Kingdom actually uses "Iris", the same tune for "Angels We Have Heard On High". They sometimes even replace "Come and worship Christ the new-born King" with the "Gloria in excelsis Deo" refrain.

Which I'd have to say, completely a personal preference, but I quite like the UK's version. Speaking of which...

Angels We Have Heard on High, written c. 1862 (10/10)

This hymn is an English paraphrase of an old French hymn of unknown origins. It is a distinct and highly memorable carol, for its Gloria refrain, where the "O" is is fluidly sustained for sixteen notes. It takes strong lungs to sing this carol! But it is one of my favorites because of the many different variations one can spin on gloria, giving the "o" as many as twenty-five notes. In a large group of singers, one can well imagine the subsequent refrain as being sung by a host of angels.

As with Gladness Men of Old, written 1859 (9.9)

Set to the tune of "For the Beauty of the Earth", this carol tells the story of the wise men from the east. It is the only well-known carol about the Biblical magi that avoids referring to them as either "magi" or "kings" and does not state how many there were. Bonus point for that.

Now, it does say they worshiped at his lowly manger bed, whereas Matthew states that they came into a house. And given Herod's order to kill all boys two and under, this event could have happened up to two years after the birth. Somewhat a reduced likelihood that the wise men were present at the manger.

Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus, written 1744 (10/10)

Penned by Charles Wesley off of Haggai 2:7, this carol is similar to "Joy to the World" in that it is not exclusively focused on the birth of Christ, but rather it is looking beyond that, toward the Second Coming.

God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen, printed c 1760 (8/10)

This is another hymn I long struggled to like, due to the whole "tidings of comfort and joy" in a song put to a minor key. It doesn't particularly sound joyful. But maybe that's just me.

My bigger question is at the song's fourth verse.

The shepherds at those tidings
rejoiced much in mind,
and left their flocks afeeding,
in tempest, storm, and wind,

Sorry...what? If it wasn't bad enough that some carol writers imagined shepherds to be sitting in the middle of a snow-laden meadow, now they're tending their sheep in a full-blown blizzard? How did that make sense to whoever wrote this carol?

I mean, benefit of the doubt, I can't prove they weren't tending their flock in the middle of a storm. But still, extreme improbability counts for something.

And with that, we have our second set of ten carols.