The Sacred “Whymns” of Isaac Watts: The Worship Wars of the 18th Century
Posted by deangonzales on December 20, 2009
It’s not uncommon to hear Reformed Christians complaining that nearly all modern hymnody is tainted by worldliness and longing nostalgically for the “good old days” when human invention and novelty were excluded from the songs of Zion. In reality, though, “worship wars” are not an exclusively modern phenomenon. As the video clip below demonstrates, the hymnody we now deem as entirely biblical and reverent was once decried as unscriptural and whimsical. Perhaps the story of Isaac Watts should prompt us to reexamine our presuppositions about God-honoring worship and temper our hasty censures of what we perceive to be fickle in modern day worship.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
December 20th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
[...] we now deem as entirely biblical and reverent was once decried as unscriptural and whimsical. The Sacred "Whymns" of Isaac Watts: The Worship Wars of the 18th Century __________________ Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean Reformed Baptist Seminary Easley, South Carolina [...]
December 21st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
two words: “boo” and “yah”
thanks for posting this! now i just need to get some of the frozen chosen reformed baptists at my church to look into this……maybe we’ll stop having people visit once and never return.
December 21st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Bob, great post, oh that we might realize there is nothing new under the sun!
How I love Isaac Watts’ hymns and how we need more like him today……!!!
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Very interesting and very good video clip. It reinforces that “worship wars” are nothing new, and in fact go back much further than Watts.
I was disappointed that it did not make clear that much of Watts’ writing was Psalm paraphrases. He took one small step away from the exclusive, literal psalmady observed in many churches, as the songs he wrote reflect the words of scripture albeit with overtones of the promised Messiah.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Steve,
Thanks for the added info. Very helpful. It would seem that Watts was not trying to be as radical as some of his critics intimated.
Bob G.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:01 am
A fair summary of the issue that Watts stood for.
However, I know that Watts would not have approved of the imagery portrayed by Mars Hill in the video. Yes, worship wars are nothing new, they are even included in the 10 commandments!
Perhaps this video should prompt us to reexamine our presuppositions about God-honoring worship and temper our hasty censures of what we perceive to be crusty in modern day worship.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Obed,
I suspect you might be referring to the brief picture of a crucifix (i.e., a statuette of Christ on a cross) in the video. If the video meant to imply that Watts knelt before that object and treated it as an object of religious veneration, I have no doubt that you’re correct. Beyond that, I’m not certain of Watts’s personal view of pictures or statues of Christ as forms of religious art. If he followed the stricter Puritan view, he probably would have opposed the video itself.
Among Reformed theologians, there have been at three views regarding pictures or images of Christ:
(1) Pictures and images of Christ are okay as religious art and for use in teaching materials for illustration (i.e., SS flannel graph boards, books, etc.) as long as one doesn’t bow down and worship these images as idols or treat them as relics for religious veneration.
(2) Pictures and images of Christ are okay as religious art and for use in teaching materials for illustration (i.e., SS flannel graph boards, books, etc.) as long as the image is generically human and doesn’t show any distinct physiological features of Jesus face, etc.
(3) Pictures and images of Christ are never right in any form for any purpose.
My position is the first and is defended by Jochem Douma, The Ten Commandments (P&R) and John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (P&R).
So while your comment “Yes, worship wars are nothing new, they are even included in the 10 commandments!” contains an element of truth, it’s not the whole truth. Many of the worship wars in Reformed circles are not over the Second Commandment per se but over human interpretations of the Second Commandment. This is true not only with the question of pictures or images of Christ, but also in regards to the kind of praise we sing in worship. Exclusive psalmodists would argue that it’s the Second Commandment that makes war against non-inspired hymns. In reality, though, it is their interpretation of the Second Commandment that has occasioned the controversy.
I’m not sure what you intended by your final comment. Did you mean to say “what we perceive to be crusty in traditional worship”?
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
December 26th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Bob,
My final sentence simply reversed the argumentation of your own final sentence. I was referring to unjustified censures of true “modern day worship”.
Regarding your preferred choice of words of “traditional worship” I believe the very familiar words of the Westminster Larger Catechism speak biblically, precisely and definitively with regards to the issue.
“Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.”
December 26th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Obed,
Most Reformed folk who favor the third or “absolute” position on visible representations of Christ, which I summarized above, are quick to appeal to this statement in the WLC. Though we appreciate and agree with much in the Westminster Standards, they’re not en toto the doctrinal standards of our seminary. We affirm them insofar as they agree with Scripture.
I find it interesting that the syntax of the catechism question above, if taken literally, would prohibit the drawing or painting or sculpting of “any creature: whatsoever;” Did the Puritans really believe it was wrong to draw a picture of an eagle or sculpt a statue of a lion? What about an ordinary person? Certainly, they didn’t intend us to take this statement absolutely. Or did they? Did the Puritans object to every kind of visible symbol, such as a cross, a dove (for the Holy Spirit), a representation of the Two Tablets of the Decalogue?
I think the 2nd commandment is referring to the making of images and using of them as devices to manipulate the deity. This is precisely how the false religions in the Bible used images and idols. It does not, in my mind, prohibit the making of visible representations of humans or animals or plants altogether. We couldn’t read magazines, admire artwork, or take photographs if that were the case.
In any case, there’s no need to debate this issue here. You’re welcome to hold your position, and I’ll respect that. Just recognize that not all who are self-consciously Reformed will agree with that position.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
December 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Dear Pastor Bob,
Let’s be careful not to take the clear teaching of WLC regarding the proper worship of God out of context. It is clear that the catechism is speaking directly in terms of worship when it forbids visual representations of humans or animals or plants. Therefore it is not speaking to the general propriety of creating art for creativity’s sake or for mere enjoyment. There is clearly an offense when man attempts to portray God in art or even his mind, simply for the fact that he cannot be compared to any created being. Surely Jesus came in the form of a man being conceived of the Holy Spirit having been born of the Virgin Mary, begotten and not created, means that while His basic human form could be portrayed His glorious nature as deity could never be captured. Therein is revealed a serious sinful flaw in human attempts to portray God through art or imagination, it is a finite weak attempt to capture the glory of an infinitely Holy GOD. I will now appeal to Scripture:
Romans 1 vss. 18-23 states:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Emphasis on verses 22 & 23.
In closing I realise your desire to not continue debating along these lines and hope I have not overstepped any bounds. I also hope that you affirm that the simple and clear reading and teaching of Q. 109 of the WLC agrees with Scripture.
Humbly yours,
Neil
December 31st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I find this little detour somewhat amusing.
Christ became a man. It is not sin to portray Christ as a typical middle eastern Jew. He can be painted, sculpted, etc. as long as the artistic medium is not an object of religious worship. That’s biblical, sensible, and straightforward.
Jesus had (and still has) a face. It is not a sin to imagine what that blessed face looked like. He is also still a Man.
Sometimes we need to stop and really listen to what we’re saying when we get all frothy about this issue.
I agree with Bob’s position on this…
Now, let the Sons of Thunder bring down their fiery bombs of condemnation…in light of what I just said.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Concerning the “amusing detour” concerning images: I propose that the question is whether the Scriptures contain an adequate representation of the nature of Christ. If they do not, the next question is whether images and pictures, which each bear a unique artistic rendering, can add substantively to the revelation which the Scriptures offer.
It is interesting that graven images of angels were mounted upon the ark which contained the law. However, the images were always covered before the ark was moved. Nevertheless, we can describe those images in vivid detail. How can we do so? Because they are described in the word. By the same token, within the pages of Scripture, we receive all the revelation of Christ which God intends. The imaginations of human artists cannot and should not add to Scriptural revelation.
Once again, is Biblical revelation sufficient? The question is yours to answer.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:48 am
Hear all 150 psalms sung with little to no instrumentation.
http://thekingdomcome.com/psalmplayer