Militaristic Hymns: Should We Put Them Aside?

[USU78]

Do we sing the praises of violent religions?

 

What a silly thing to say.

 

Let's just be fair:  The Crusades were not as horrible in context as is generally assumed, especially as compared with the 1,000 years of horror inflicted by Muslims on an unhappy world.

[USU78]

I'm not concerned about the righteousness of either side of those conflicts, just that today as we may be on the brink of expanding missionary work into Muslim countries, maybe we should

consider the wording of some of our hymns that may prove to be unhelpful, much like "where the red untutored Indian seeketh here his rude delights" might be an impediment to spreading

the gospel among our Native American (north, central, and south) brothers and sisters.

 

Fair enough.

[USU78]

I do. The Muslims were the tolerant ones. Other then a tax on non-believers there was no concerted persecution of Christians or Jews living in Islamic lands (unless they rose up of course). Look at what Christians did to Jews in their domains.

Of course there is really only a difference of degree. The Christians and the Muslims deserved each other. They probably still do.

 

Horsepucky.  You speak from a limited understanding, quite Eurocentric in fact.

 

Ask a Hindu what he thinks of your assertion of tolerance and the joys of dhimmitude:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

[USU78]

The Crusades were defensive at least as often as they were offensive.

 

Arguably they were wholly defensive, as they left Turkey, Iran, Iraq, North Africa and the Muslim heartland of the Arabian Peninsula alone:  only the fringes were ever attacked . . . and Israel.

[ERayR]

Yesterday we sang hymn 250, "We Are All Enlisted." It's part of a group of hymns I fondly call the Militia Hymns

or the "Pump You Up Hymns".

 

These include "Onward Christian Soldiers," "Behold! A Royal Army," We're Marching On To Glory," "Who's On The

Lord's Side, Who?" "Let Us All Press On," and "Up Awake Ye Defenders Of Zion."

 

The texts often include imagery of war, weapons, defeat, victory, defiance. Given the current zeitgeist of love,

cooperation, and gentle persuasion, is it time for these hymns to be retired? Many of them originated or were adopted

from Protestant revival hymns in the times the church was under actual physical danger or when it was an insular

Utah-centered religion. 

 

Back in the 1970s, my parents served a mission in the Pueblo Indian reservations of Northern New Mexico. 

One Sunday they were singing "For The Strength Of The Hills" in a sacrament meeting in the

home of the Native American branch president. When they came to these words, they were quite embarrassed, given the ethnicity of the meeting's attendees:

 

 

My mother wrote a letter to the First Presidency and Church Music Committee, and that verse was removed in the 1985 edition of LDS Hymns.

 

We might also note that the original words "Long shall his blood which was shed by assassins stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame" were

changed in "Praise to the Man."

 

Also, given the very good chance that some day soon we will have missionaries in predominantly Muslim countries and the current exposure of

Muslim investigators to our missionary efforts, would it not be prudent to remove these "Crusader" military-style hymns from our hymnbooks?

 

Should we remove all the scriptures that speak in militaristic terms?

[strappinglad]

If the Church removed all the militaristic hymns and changed the wording of others to reflect a kinder gentler approach, could it not be accused of " hiding its history " ?  

[bluebell]

 

Horsepucky.  You speak from a limited understanding, quite Eurocentric in fact.

 

Ask a Hindu what he thinks of your assertion of tolerance and the joys of dhimmitude:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

 

Nehor never claimed that Muslims were tolerant of everyone, but they were very tolerant of Jews and Christians (they called them "people of the book" in an acknowledgment of shared scripture), at least until the crusades.

 

After the crusades, Muslims were very much the enemy of Christians, and it has mostly continued in that vein since then.  

[bluebell]

Context, as is to often the case, is missing here:

 

630 Mohammed takes Mecca

635 Muslims conquer Damascus

637 Muslims conquer Jerusalem

641 Muslims conquer Persia and Egypt

694 Dome of the Rock constructed

693 Muslims conquer Armenia

698 Muslims conquer Carthage

711 Muslims conquer Andalusia

732 Muslims turned back at Tours by Charles Martel

809 Muslims conquer Sardinia and Corsica

827 Muslims conquer Sicily

846 Muslims attack Rome

1090 Assassin sect founded

1095 1st Crusade

1099 Jerusalem retaken by Crusaders

1187 Saladin reconquers Jerusalem

1189 3rd Crusade

1228 6th Crusade:  Friedrich II retakes Jerusalem

1244 Muslims reconquer Jerusalem

1252 Muslims pushed back to and confined in Granada

1291 Acre falls to Muslims, Crusades end

1453 Constantinople falls to Muslims

1529 Vienna withstands 1st Muslim siege

1683 Vienna withstands 2nd Muslim siege

 

If anybody believes the Muslims in Turkey, Persia, Egypt, the Mediterranean islands were anything other bloody-handed and cruel, he is kidding himself.

 

If anybody believes the Muslim expansionist agenda ended with but was caused by the Crusades, he is kidding himself.

 

The Crusades lasted only 1095-1291, 196 years.

 

Muslim expansionism, if measured only to 1683's 2nd Siege of Vienna, lasted 1,048 years (635-1683).

 

Are we really supposed to believe that Chivalric Mischief during a less than 200 year period is somehow far worse than the more than 1,000 years of Muslim terror across Asia, Africa and Europe?

 

I have a degree in History and this era was one of my focuses in getting my degree, so i understand the context quite well.  And your relating of it isn't very accurate or fair.

 

It's not accurate because to describe it as "Chivalric Mischief" completely ignores the incredible evil that many Christians committed in the name of Christ against Muslims during the crusades (unless killing Muslim children and eating them in fits of blood-lust, or selling Christian children into slavery while pillaging wealthy Christians outposts for money is your definition of mischief) and it's not fair because your comparison between the crusades with the entire history of Muslim expansion implies that the crusades was the only time that Christians expanded their empire and their wealth in the name of Christ.  

 

We all know that nothing could be further from the truth.  Christianity was spreading by the sword long before the crusades and continued long after it.  Just think of the horrors that Christians committed in the Americas and in Africa-whole civilizations of people are extinct now because of Christian expansion.

 

But none of that is here nor there in terms of this thread.  I bring it up only so we can all remember that as Christians, our history does not allow us to get up on our high horse and look down at any other religion, including Islam.

 

Hopefully our future will be less embarrassing.  

[3DOP]

I was thinking this very same thing last night except we were singing "Carry on" which when singing about Mountains and deserts on the prairies it loses its edge....!

 

I guess this isn't the Crosby, Stllls, Nash & Young "hymn" with which us old farts are familiar?

 

[The Nehor]

Horsepucky.  You speak from a limited understanding, quite Eurocentric in fact.

 

Ask a Hindu what he thinks of your assertion of tolerance and the joys of dhimmitude:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

Very true, which is why I said Christians and Muslims deserve each other. I would still argue that at least the Muslims tolerated some other faith. I was not arguing they were saints. Neither side was.

[The Nehor]

Arguably they were wholly defensive, as they left Turkey, Iran, Iraq, North Africa and the Muslim heartland of the Arabian Peninsula alone:  only the fringes were ever attacked . . . and Israel.

I would argue they left them alone primarily because they had little hope of victory. Not attacking a foe that will be difficult to defeat is not a sign of moral virtue; it is simple pragmatism.

[The Nehor]

What a silly thing to say.

 

Let's just be fair:  The Crusades were not as horrible in context as is generally assumed, especially as compared with the 1,000 years of horror inflicted by Muslims on an unhappy world.

While the Muslims were conducting their campaign of horror and blood the Christian Roman Empire and its successors were converting Europe in a very Christlike manner that in no way involved the forced conversion of pagans under threat of death. Right............

Of course there were peaceable conversions to both faiths at the same time but both were quite willing to resort to the sword if necessary.

[Duncan]

I guess this isn't the Crosby, Stllls, Nash & Young "hymn" with which us old farts are familiar?

 

 

ah! Neil Young is where I am from!

[strappinglad]

Is that Neil Young Ave. in north Winnipeg?

[Duncan]

Is that Neil Young Ave. in north Winnipeg?

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmm, not sure if there is a Neil Young Ave. here but he is from here!

[Robert F. Smith]

"Onward Christian Soldiers" is very embarrassing when sung in the South.  Da** yankees.

 

..................................................  

You're probably thinking of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

[EllenMaksoud]

Yesterday we sang hymn 250, "We Are All Enlisted." It's part of a group of hymns I fondly call the Militia Hymns

or the "Pump You Up Hymns".

 

These include "Onward Christian Soldiers," "Behold! A Royal Army," We're Marching On To Glory," "Who's On The

Lord's Side, Who?" "Let Us All Press On," and "Up Awake Ye Defenders Of Zion."

 

The texts often include imagery of war, weapons, defeat, victory, defiance. Given the current zeitgeist of love,

cooperation, and gentle persuasion, is it time for these hymns to be retired? Many of them originated or were adopted

from Protestant revival hymns in the times the church was under actual physical danger or when it was an insular

Utah-centered religion. 

 

Back in the 1970s, my parents served a mission in the Pueblo Indian reservations of Northern New Mexico. 

One Sunday they were singing "For The Strength Of The Hills" in a sacrament meeting in the

home of the Native American branch president. When they came to these words, they were quite embarrassed, given the ethnicity of the meeting's attendees:

 

 

My mother wrote a letter to the First Presidency and Church Music Committee, and that verse was removed in the 1985 edition of LDS Hymns.

 

We might also note that the original words "Long shall his blood which was shed by assassins stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame" were

changed in "Praise to the Man."

 

Also, given the very good chance that some day soon we will have missionaries in predominantly Muslim countries and the current exposure of

Muslim investigators to our missionary efforts, would it not be prudent to remove these "Crusader" military-style hymns from our hymnbooks?

"Onward Christian Soldiers" is theologically incorrect.

[3DOP]

"Onward Christian Soldiers" is theologically incorrect.

 

Feel free to defend your point of view.

[3DOP]

hmmmmmmmmmmmm, not sure if there is a Neil Young Ave. here but he is from here!

 

There is a town in north Ontario....

[EllenMaksoud]

Feel free to defend your point of view.

It is my private philosophy actually.  Mashallah means, ( All Good Comes from God) After years in Evangelicalism,  so many I knew were ready to out argue someone rather than give love. So, they won an argument, but lost a convert. 

[The Nehor]

It is my private philosophy actually.  Mashallah means, ( All Good Comes from God) After years in Evangelicalism,  so many I knew were ready to out argue someone rather than give love. So, they won an argument, but lost a convert. 

 

I read the enemy in the song as being sin itself. As sin is the one thing in this life I know of that we are allowed to hate without reservation (without spilling it onto the sinner, whether it is ourselves or someone else) it alone is worthy of extermination and is a fine topic for a militaristic hymn.

Edited October 28, 2014 by The Nehor

[EllenMaksoud]

I read the enemy in the song as being sin itself. As sin is the one thing in this life I know of that we are allowed to hate without reservation (without spilling it onto the sinner, whether it is ourselves or someone else) it alone is worthy of extermination and is a fine topic for a militaristic hymn.

I'll try to keep this sweet and gentle, but I have very strong feelings on the issue, some of which have not been articulated yet. Having seen more than my share of violence, I practice love and gentleness as much as I can. When I bark at people and am unkind, it feels like satan has won.  America has been in an almost continual state of war since WWII, and it has gotten us lots of enemies.

 

In looking at scripture, I do not feel that we fight satan. It is by the power of God that his hand is stayed in our lives. Think about the book of Job, and  satan's acts against Jesus,  and the fact that satan had to ask permission to "sift" one of the apostles. In the Lord's Prayer, "deliver us from evil", tells a story.

 

And, while some denominations blame Eve for the fall, perhaps she and the rest of us simply lacked defenses against  satan?

[Bernard Gui]

Will anyone not opine on how a hymn like "Hope of Israel" might affect future missionary work in Muslim countries?

[The Nehor]

Will anyone not opine on how a hymn like "Hope of Israel" might affect future missionary work in Muslim countries?

I will boldly step in and not opine on this. You are welcome.

[Tacenda]

Yes! I was a military brat and served myself. It is long past time to reject the violent imagery of military conquest, let alone the cutting off arms of fellow human beings with swords.

Sounds like some stuff right out of the BoM. Edited October 29, 2014 by Tacenda