 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
19 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." }
TJ
1/18/2019 10:18:50 am
"That the song teaches the Kenosis theory, intentionally or unintentionally, is obvious."
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. 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:
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.
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.
TJ
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".
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.
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 Perpetual Student
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 . . . Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsCaleb Phelps Archives
July 2018
|
RSS Feed