I write this blog knowing fully well it might make someone mad. But I've got a question;
Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing... what was wrong with it?
My fiance and I were driving back from a frosty run and the topic of "why do Christians do the things they do: music" got started. Usually I'm the rant-prone one of the two, but on this topic I do think I have found an equal. I was recently going through a ton of music for the wedding ceremony and reception and happened to stumble upon the *new and improved* version of Come thou Fount of Every Blessing pithily entitled Come Thou Fount, Come Thou King. Oi, where to start.
First of all, why? What was deficient in that lovely older version that we decided to have to add extra, IMO poorly constructed (and ill-fitting) verses and an oh-so-awesome™ chorus that slices and dices metaphors worse than an old school salad-shooter. Please, someone, demonstrate this grand lacking to me that could (and is) improved by pedantic, simplistic lyrics that seem to deflate the song's apex in effort to fit in yet another repeat-ad nauseum empty chorus that must include a declaration of what the singers are doing... "To you we sing." I guess we missed that you were singing... as you were singing. God missed it, too. *sigh.*
So now that I have undoubtedly relegated myself to the ranks of the punctilious praise pontificators, can someone out there see at least the reason in these remarks? I'll make my case:
Here are the "normal" forms in which the song appears. Usually, it includes the standard 3 stanza variety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Thou_Fount_of_Every_Blessing
Here is the 21st century's western culture's contribution.
http://www.gatewayworship.com/cc/01_ComeThouFount.pdf
Where to start.
Item 1: Which one is not like the other one?
Anyone notice a drastic lack of the otherwise rich verses usually found in the middle. "Jesus sought me..." and "Here I raise my Ebenezer..." have been replaced with: ( "/ " signifies a breathing point, or a break in the melody due to the choppy writing)
I / was lost in / utter darkness / til you came / and / rescued me.
I / was bound / by / all my / sin / when you came / and / set me free.
Ouch. The rest isn't any better. But is it picky to say such things? Maybe. Maybe it was an honest effort.
Item 2: Out with the good, in with the bad.
Here's the thing:
I don't think anyone could argue that it is appropriate for someone, (in this case a Mr. Thomas Miller) to insert glaringly ill-fitting lyrics into a song, replacing original lyrics that are not only more rich but vastly superior in terms of how they blend into the overall effort. You generally cannot beat an original author. The average person's vocabulary and sense of poetry simply doesn't compare. It's why movies based on books are so often so bad (except the Bourne Movies, and LOTR - minus the nonsense in Two Towers.) At least Hollywood has started understanding that an author's source material usually outclasses a screenwriters hurried scribblings. There will be blood in the streets when someone does this to some of my favorite literary work and tries to re-release it. The day praise song writers humbly approach hymns of old, recognizing their richness and without desire to "leave their mark" will be a great day. Some already do: here's looking at you Sandra McCracken, Matthew Smith and the other RUF people. Thank you, really.
Item 3 : The Bride. (HT to Jennifer)
There is no more beautiful image of Christ and pursuit of His than that of the Bride and the Bridegroom. I adore that imagery. I weep with such imagery. It is the kindness of God that leads me to repentance. Having said that... what is THAT doing inserted into the chorus like a tag line? The song isn't referring to that imagery at all. At all. Is it wrong for it to be there, theologically? No, of course not - but it looks "a right shabby," as my friend from Manchester says. Oh, and thanks for clearing up who THE BRIDE OF CHRIST is singing to. "To you we sing." Seriously, one preposition is good enough per line when they're that short. Sing does rhyme with blessing, though. Or... wait. It actually has the word "sing" at the end. Cheaters! But then, I'm back on poor form.
So maybe I am to picky. Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more case where the sun is setting in the West. Where we fail to take time to appreciate beauty and prefer to substitute its sweetness with Saccharin or Splenda and delude ourselves into thinking we're getting the same thing. If there were ever a place in which this line would be held, you would think it would be the Church. But so often, it seems to me, we're the first on board. We're the first to go for relevancy, to push for practicum and to move toward mediocrity. And I say we suffer greatly for it. Just like this song.
God help us. Restore true eyes to your Bride for beauty, true ears to hear and hearts to love truth without compromise. Even my own wicked heart.
Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing... what was wrong with it?
My fiance and I were driving back from a frosty run and the topic of "why do Christians do the things they do: music" got started. Usually I'm the rant-prone one of the two, but on this topic I do think I have found an equal. I was recently going through a ton of music for the wedding ceremony and reception and happened to stumble upon the *new and improved* version of Come thou Fount of Every Blessing pithily entitled Come Thou Fount, Come Thou King. Oi, where to start.
First of all, why? What was deficient in that lovely older version that we decided to have to add extra, IMO poorly constructed (and ill-fitting) verses and an oh-so-awesome™ chorus that slices and dices metaphors worse than an old school salad-shooter. Please, someone, demonstrate this grand lacking to me that could (and is) improved by pedantic, simplistic lyrics that seem to deflate the song's apex in effort to fit in yet another repeat-ad nauseum empty chorus that must include a declaration of what the singers are doing... "To you we sing." I guess we missed that you were singing... as you were singing. God missed it, too. *sigh.*
So now that I have undoubtedly relegated myself to the ranks of the punctilious praise pontificators, can someone out there see at least the reason in these remarks? I'll make my case:
Here are the "normal" forms in which the song appears. Usually, it includes the standard 3 stanza variety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Thou_Fount_of_Every_Blessing
Here is the 21st century's western culture's contribution.
http://www.gatewayworship.com/cc/01_ComeThouFount.pdf
Where to start.
Item 1: Which one is not like the other one?
Anyone notice a drastic lack of the otherwise rich verses usually found in the middle. "Jesus sought me..." and "Here I raise my Ebenezer..." have been replaced with: ( "/ " signifies a breathing point, or a break in the melody due to the choppy writing)
I / was lost in / utter darkness / til you came / and / rescued me.
I / was bound / by / all my / sin / when you came / and / set me free.
Ouch. The rest isn't any better. But is it picky to say such things? Maybe. Maybe it was an honest effort.
Item 2: Out with the good, in with the bad.
Here's the thing:
I don't think anyone could argue that it is appropriate for someone, (in this case a Mr. Thomas Miller) to insert glaringly ill-fitting lyrics into a song, replacing original lyrics that are not only more rich but vastly superior in terms of how they blend into the overall effort. You generally cannot beat an original author. The average person's vocabulary and sense of poetry simply doesn't compare. It's why movies based on books are so often so bad (except the Bourne Movies, and LOTR - minus the nonsense in Two Towers.) At least Hollywood has started understanding that an author's source material usually outclasses a screenwriters hurried scribblings. There will be blood in the streets when someone does this to some of my favorite literary work and tries to re-release it. The day praise song writers humbly approach hymns of old, recognizing their richness and without desire to "leave their mark" will be a great day. Some already do: here's looking at you Sandra McCracken, Matthew Smith and the other RUF people. Thank you, really.
Item 3 : The Bride. (HT to Jennifer)
There is no more beautiful image of Christ and pursuit of His than that of the Bride and the Bridegroom. I adore that imagery. I weep with such imagery. It is the kindness of God that leads me to repentance. Having said that... what is THAT doing inserted into the chorus like a tag line? The song isn't referring to that imagery at all. At all. Is it wrong for it to be there, theologically? No, of course not - but it looks "a right shabby," as my friend from Manchester says. Oh, and thanks for clearing up who THE BRIDE OF CHRIST is singing to. "To you we sing." Seriously, one preposition is good enough per line when they're that short. Sing does rhyme with blessing, though. Or... wait. It actually has the word "sing" at the end. Cheaters! But then, I'm back on poor form.
So maybe I am to picky. Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more case where the sun is setting in the West. Where we fail to take time to appreciate beauty and prefer to substitute its sweetness with Saccharin or Splenda and delude ourselves into thinking we're getting the same thing. If there were ever a place in which this line would be held, you would think it would be the Church. But so often, it seems to me, we're the first on board. We're the first to go for relevancy, to push for practicum and to move toward mediocrity. And I say we suffer greatly for it. Just like this song.
God help us. Restore true eyes to your Bride for beauty, true ears to hear and hearts to love truth without compromise. Even my own wicked heart.
