3 Hymns that Teach Bad Theology

8/5/2014

And Can it Be
The very popular hymn by Charles Wesley, “And Can it be That I should gain,” originally entitled "Free Grace": contains some serious heresies in the following words.

He left his father's throne above,  
So free, so infinite his grace,  
Emptied himself of all but love,  
And bled for Adam’s helpless race.

By using the phrase, “emptied himself of all but love,” Wesley is talking of the ancient heresy known as the Kenosis theory. What has come to be called "Kenotic theology" attempts to understand the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity in light of the kenosis found in Philippians 2:7. In this verse it tells us that Christ, “"Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:6-7),” The aim of this view is to try and solve the supposed paradox of Christ having both a human and divine nature. The problem comes when it is concluded that in the incarnation, Jesus took on human nature and gave up or lost some of the divine attributes, such that Jesus was not fully divine. Thus, when Wesley writes and says Christ “emptied Himself of all but love” he is saying Christ gave up all of or part of His divine nature. The doctrine of the two natures of Christ (known as the hypostatic union) maintains that Jesus possessed a full human nature and a full divine nature. Many modern hymnals have solved this heresy in the hymn by changing the words to read, “Emptied himself and came in love.”

The Cleansing Wave
At a surface reading of this hymn there appears to be nothing wrong with the lyrics. In fact, based on how you interpret these lyrics, there is no discernable bad theology in the hymn. Here are the words to the chorus:

The cleansing stream I see, I see!
I plunge, and O it cleanseth me;
O praise the Lord, it cleanseth me,
It cleanseth me, yes, cleanseth me.

As I said, there is nothing here that immediately jumps off the page at you. This is why it was especially disheartening for me when I read about what the author of the hymn intended by her lyrics. The author of this hymn is Phoebe Palmer (1807-74). Palmer was a writer who strongly promoted the doctrines of Christian perfectionism. In fact, Palmer is known as one of the founders of the Holiness movement in America and the Higher Life movement in the United Kingdom. She is also a forerunner of the Keswick movement. Though we all know this hymn, it is the theology of Phoebe Palmer that bears her legacy. She is often considered to be the link between the Wesleyan revivals and the modern Pentecostal movement. Her teaching emphasized the erroneous belief holiness is a matter of immediacy. Notice that in the hymn there is no future tense. Everything that happens is either past or present. In the hymn she is comparing the crisis of Christian perfectionism that her theology holds to as a baptism that cleanses immediately to produce a pure life.

Softly and Tenderly Jesus is Calling
This is one of several common hymns that depict Jesus as a kind-hearted Savior who reflects characteristics that are less than deity.

Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling,
Calling for you and for me;
See on the portals He’s waiting and watching,
Watching for you and for me.

This hymn is often used in our churches as an invitation hymn because of its quiet, inoffensive nature. The idea of Jesus “calling” as reflected in this hymn, however, is not evident in the biblical data. Romans 8:30 promises us that those who God calls He will also justify. This entire passage demonstrates that those whom God calls will always answer. The major problem with this song is how it portrays Jesus. The image that is evoked is one of Christ standing a ways off unsure if the unbeliever will come to him or not. This does not jive with the Scriptural teaching of the father’s unwillingness to let any perish. Christ was not passive in his desire to see men saved. He was eager to rescue a lost and dying world, a far cry from “waiting and watching.”

Posted by Caleb

23 Comments

Tylor

8/5/2014 10:10:00 am

Boy, come on sit down. Are you seriously going to suggest that Charles Wesley meant that Christ was implying that Christ emptied himself of his attributes. Where historically do you even find this in the teachings of John or Charles Wesley or in their teachings? Let alone their music. I think when we look a beautifully written theological treatus of redemption and salvation like "And can it be" it makes me see the all powerful divine nature of the Son of God who saved me and gave himself for me. How about instead of ganging up on dead song writers that we can misquote and misdirect their sayings, we see them for the truths that they hold and the value they hold both musically and theologically for the church. Just a suggestion.

Ben

8/6/2014 06:17:50 am

Where historically do we find this teaching in Wesley's work? I know of at least one place - in one of his most famous hymns, "And Can it Be." There was no misquoting the author, you can look up the lyrics yourself, that's what they originally were. That the song teaches the Kenosis theory, intentionally or unintentionally, is obvious. I agree there is much truth in the song and it's one of my favorites, and I'm glad many modern hymnals have corrected the error of the song. But singing in worship is our opportunity to joyously speak truth to God, and when the songs we sing have error, that should be noted and corrected.

Daniel B

8/28/2016 07:21:24 pm

{ Where historically do we find this teaching in Wesley's work? I know of at least one place - in one of his most famous hymns, "And Can it Be." }

This is getting tautlogical.

{There was no misquoting the author, you can look up the lyrics yourself, that's what they originally were. }

But there is definitely misinterpreting the author and making-believe that there is only possible meaning of the words when that is obviously not the case.

1/18/2019 10:18:50 am

"That the song teaches the Kenosis theory, intentionally or unintentionally, is obvious."

So then you must argue that Paul also taught Kenosis theory since the phrase "he emptied himself" is a direct quote from Philippians 2. So either Kenosis theory is actually correct, OR there's another way to interpret that phrase that just as obviously applies to what Wesley wrote.

Michael W. Holbein

4/5/2023 05:09:09 am

Very gracious response. Thankyou! God bless your pilgrimage.

Ethan

8/7/2014 10:30:56 am

Given Charles Wesley's place in church history, wouldn't it be reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt through poetic license? I don't possess a detailed knowledge of his personal beliefs on the kenosis theory; but I don't believe it was a major issue of his day. This hymn has come under greater scrutiny since his time primarily as a result of more recent theological discussions (19th century-present). Furthermore, highly poetic speech can easily be taken to mean something its author did not intend. I agree that theological precision is important and that we should adjust our hymns when necessary to avoid confusion. But I'm not sure we have enough information to accuse Wesley of holding to the kenosis theory.

Rory

8/11/2014 03:56:57 am

Ethan - you make some great points. I agree with you and the author of this post that we should adjust hymns when necessary if there is some untruth found in them. This was why I was especially thankful to see that the author of this post suggested an alternative line to the hymn "And Can it Be" which would allow us to continue to sing it. The unfortunate thing about the line in question is that we are not able to ask Wesley what he meant by the line in his hymn. We are forced then to conclude that he was indeed teaching the Kenosis theory. Although we may not have other evidence that would say Wesley did indeed hold to this belief we still have to do something with that line. If that line is not teaching Kenotic Theology than what is it teaching? I'm not trying to "accuse" Wesley of anything I'm just reading the line as I see it.

Ashley link

8/13/2014 05:00:01 pm

Ethan, you've definitely brought up some good points here. I appreciate what you said about giving Wesley the benefit of the doubt through poetic licence. For me, I never even thought twice about that particular line and I never even assumed it had anything to do with the Kenosis theory. I didn't even know the Kenosis theory existed! I always thought that "emptied himself of all but love" meant something more along the lines of the passage in Philippians where Jesus humbled himself completely. So having said that, I really don't think that your average Joe like me is going to know the difference and it probably won't be a big deal to them at all. Perhaps this is a result of thinking about things a little too much? It just seems like it's taking things a bit far.

Steve

9/19/2014 01:21:37 am

I am know I am late to the party here but while I would agree that Wesley most likely didn't intend to write something heretical, but there is something to be said about using precise language. No matter how you slice it if you read it at face value it is bad theology. I saw one hymnal that actually changed it to:
"Emptied himself AND CAME IN LOVE". Which in my opinion works a bit better than the original line.

Kathryn

9/6/2023 07:59:41 pm

The way I had always sung it growing up was "Emptied himself because of love." I didn't realize it was a change from the original until college, when they sang the original version. I've always appreciated "because of love" more because I feel like that better encapsulates the message of the Gospel and the reason that Christ came and died in the first place. It says virtually the same thing as "emptied himself and came in love," but I appreciate it better because it shows why he was coming.

The Perpetual Student

9/7/2023 07:08:21 pm

Changing the words is a subtle way of avoiding difficult doctrines.

For example, the hymn Holy Holy Holy has had the last line changed in some hymnals from "God in three persons, blessed Trinity," to "God over all and blessed eternally." It's a true statement, it fits metrically, while avoiding the Trinity.

Another example is the hymn Praise to the Lord where one hymnal changed the words from "Hast thou not seen how thy desires e'er have been, granted in what he ordaineth," to "God's care enfolds all whose true good he upholds. Hast thou not known his sustaining?" Those words avoid the idea of God ordering events.

In both cases the words have been changed to suit someone's doctrinal preferences. The recent trend in contemporary Christian music is to avoid doctrine altogether -- just use terms without exploring what they mean.

Emily S

1/23/2016 11:20:37 pm

While I am not an exclusive psalmody person, I see the value of singing the Psalter. You can never go wrong singing the psalms.

Don S

7/13/2017 07:09:19 pm

On "Softly and Tenderly," the Bible also teaches that "many are called, but few are chosen." If a person's doctrine is that all that God calls, he justifies, then there is a contradiction. Whereas, the calling of Romans 8 is obviously one that has been responded to by faith. The entire doctrinal criteria of justification must come into play, not just a tangent on a single verse.

Mark Ellis

8/2/2017 08:27:26 am

I appreciate the post. It reminds us how careful we must be. In relation to current Christian songs; perhaps even more so.

Most song writers today may demonstrate a love for The Christ while having little Theological knowledge. " The Savior is waiting" is another sloppy attempt at portraying a passive Jesus who just hangs around waiting for our beckoning call. Beyond that we have a cadre of (Jesus is my boyfriend) sentimental worship songs that are almost devoid of doctrinal substance. We continue to watch and measure based upon The Word Of God.

Brandon

8/26/2020 09:36:13 am

I don't think it was ever explicitly taught to me but "Softly and Tenderly Jeus is Calling" evokes the father from the parable of the prodigal son. The father who continually scanned the horizon looking for his returning son.

I don't think it is a sloppy attempt to portray a passive Jesus, especially since Jesus himself describes how one aspect of God's relationship with fallen humanity is actively (not passively) watching and waiting for our return.

1/18/2019 10:16:45 am

I have to wonder if you would also accuse the Apostle Paul of heresy for using writing the phrase "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but EMPTIED HIMSELF, by taking the form of a servant".

You can't accuse someone of heresy for using language directly from the bible just because other people have misused that language.

Jez

4/10/2019 01:55:29 am

Of course, we need to be careful what we are singing, as people learn much from songs that are sung, but we would hope that the foundation of a person's theology is learnt through the teaching/preaching they are receiving in their local church. The reason for this discussion, is because we have firstly, studied the Bible, either for ourselves or through teaching we have received, and have noticed a disparity between that, and the lyrics of a song we are singing. This gives the opportunity to discern the real/deeper truth of the Bible, God's word.

Luis Andujo

5/24/2019 04:22:24 pm

...endless geneologies...dont get sucked in...the end of the commandment is Love out of a pure heart. Period.

Stephen

3/22/2021 09:24:28 pm

Sorry, but you are not fully understanding the nature of God. As was mentioned by previous commenters, the first part of the verse is directly from Philippians 2. The second part reveals Wesley's understanding of the nature of God. This is a point of disagreement between Calvinists and Wesleyans.

The Scriptures state that "God is Love" (I Jn. 4:8). The Scriptures also state that God is Holy, and many other things. However, we have to understand what Holiness means as it pertains to God. It is a state of being, not part of his substance. Holiness means separate, or set apart. God is set apart from everything for many reasons, but the main reason is that he is the sole source of Agape love. That is what defines him as God. All of his other attributes are empty and cold without love.

Think about justice, or peace, or omnipotence, or power, or creativity, or goodness, or anything else, and imagine it without love. Possible, but cold and empty. Think of the fruit of the Spirit? Without love, what are they? Joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Again, all possible without love, but cold and empty. Because, you see, it is LOVE that makes all those things alive. And, the only source of that love is God. And the only physical embodiment of that love is Jesus.

So, Philippians 2 tells us that Jesus emptied himself. Wesley states that he retained love, which is the essence of God and the source of his holiness. More importantly, in a previous verse, Paul writes, "You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had." (v. 5) This means that we must empty OURSELVES in order to be a conduit for the love of God. That love is what transforms us. That love is what makes us holy. That love is only available to us because, as it states in I Jn. 4:19, we have the capacity to love only because he loved us first.

Finally, in regard to your second song. In Genesis, God called to Adam. He didn't drag him out of the bushes. He called, and waited for Adam to come. And, in Rev. 3:20 states: “Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends."

He's already come and conquered death & hell. So, yes. Now, he's calling. He's knocking. He's waiting. He's watching. And if you respond, he will come in (Rev. 3:20) and call you his child (Jn. 1:12) .

Luke

5/20/2021 10:10:57 am

Maybe we could just do what the reformed church has done for centuries and just sing the Psalms. How dare we sing from the creativities of sinful man rather than sing the infallible Words of God. That which is not expressly commanded must be forbidden!

Roger Zimmerman

2/14/2022 03:27:45 am

Where do you get your interpretation of the song as "The image [of] one of Christ standing a ways off unsure if the unbeliever will come to him or not?

The hymn clearly says "See at the portal he's waiting and watching." This picture is a clear picture of Revelation 19b-20 "So be earnest and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me"

There is nothing far off here. He is at the portal - the door. He is knocking and watching. Both give me a sense of urgency and attentiveness.

In the chorus, the word Earnestly is added, giving a sense of urgency.

Then to put the verse in context, consider the second and third verses of the hymn. In the second the urgency is increased with "Why should we tarry when Jesus is pleading " Then in the third verse "Time is now fleeting, the moments are passing ... Shadows are gathering, death-beds are coming"

As to the tenderness of God, apparently you missed a few verses about tenderness. Jesus said he would send "another comforter," Isaiah 66:13 says, “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you.” There are also many additional metaphors in the Bible such as the mother hen, and the caring shepherd. In Psalm 145 we have "The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made." And don't even get me started on verses about His "tender mercy."

Admittedly there are also many verses about God as disciplinarian, tough on sin, but we have to look at all the sides that are taught in scripture.

Sorry I'm just not seeing that the words in this hymn put forth the atrocities you suggest.

2/28/2023 09:11:14 am

In defense of Wesley, should we also eliminate Philippians 2:6-7 from our Bible? After all, it says Jesus "emptied" himself. If Wesley quoting St. Paul is heresy . . .

5/2/2024 07:52:48 am

My greatest issue with “And Can It Be” is that God did not nor cannot die. Wesley falls into the fallacy of “If A= B and B=C then A=C. The Roman Catholics do this with Mary as Jesus mother and Jesus as God, so therefore Mary is the mother of God, which she is not. Wesley applies the same failed logic in this hymn where Jesus as a man died, and if Jesus is God therefore God died. He didn’t. I also throw this in; the Bible does not say the Father forsook the Son. What it says is Jesus said “My God why have You forsaken me?” These are the words of Jesus as a man who experienced the separation David wrote about in Psalm 22 but never do we read that the Father forsook the Son. That is beyond the reach of scripture.

3 Hymns that Teach Bad Theology

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Archives

About Us:

What People have to Say: