Will we crown Him ?? (hymnal theology)

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:39 pm

I like to spend time in the pew reading and reflecting on the verses in the hymnal (especially during entertainment segments of a service).

A good number of familiar hymns include the concept that we will "crown" Christ "Lord of all," or we will "crown Him with many crowns," etc.

I've never thought about it before, but that concept strikes me now as a bit odd. How would "WE" crown Him in any respect? His Lordship is without regard to anything we might do.

What am I missing?

Post by **_TK** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:09 pm

w/o taking the time to look, isnt there a passage in Rev that says the elders "cast their crowns" at the feet of Jesus? of course, casting doesnt necessarily mean crowning.

i have a hymnbook, but i am too lazy to run downstairs and grab it-- but as i recall the "theme" of "crown him with many crowns" is simply that we (should) acknowledge and treat Jesus and Lord and king. therfore, i think the language in the hymn is figurative as opposed to relying on a biblical text.

TK

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:19 pm

Yes, certainly figurative, but what's the concept the figurative language is supposed to represent ? The Father crowned him Lord of all -- I have nothing to do with that.

Post by **_TK** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:03 am

simply that we are to accept Jesus as king. we are to make him king. historically, men were made kings by being coronated. you are right, he already IS king, but we need to personalize it. i remember the 5 spiritual laws booklet and the picture of a throne-- before salvation we (self) is on the throne; post-salvation Jesus is on the throne.

TK

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:15 am

Of course, this is a good example of why I've never been a big fan of the "spiritual laws." I never thought scaring people into salvation was a good idea first of all with the threat of the pit of eternal damnation as a defensive reason to trust in God. Pragmatically, I'm not sure it sticks and leads to a lot of sinners' prayers that result in a church full of professed believers that really only want to avoid hellfire and brimstone damnation.

Also, the focus is all about salvation -- what I can get out of it, instead of just focusing on the Holy God that deserves to be worshiped and praised, and that if we want to do that, he's got great things in store for us such as spending life eternally with him.

These tracts always make it a personal issue -- what I can do/get, instead of what God deserves.

Anyway, I guess that's a bit of a digression.

Post by **_Michelle** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:05 am

Hey Darin,

I don't think that what you posted is a digression because what you are decrying is what those hymns are getting at, in my opinion. Jesus is savior and lord, but do you think he is either of those to an unbeliever? And to a person who has only prayed a "sinner's prayer" to avoid the horrors of hell, would you think Jesus is his lord? I think the hymns are an exhortation to follow and submit to the lordship of Christ.

I'm not entirely clear about what your objection is in these hymns, but it sounds a little like the sovereignty of God argument that calvinists and arminians have. The author of the hymn All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name was Edward Perronet, who was a friend/co-laborer of the Wesleys. He might be expressing Arminian thought in his poetic phrasing. Could that be why you are uncomfortable with the hymn?

Oddly enough (!), this morning when my radio alarm started up, the first song I heard was All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name. Just thought I'd throw that in there....

Post by **_TK** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:28 pm

i agree, darin, that the typical "tract" approach is as you described, and may result in conversion for "fire insurance" which is likely not a conversion at all. i must state, however, that the Chick tract "This was your life" really got me to thinking when i was quite young.

Also, i dont think there is anything wrong with following Christ "for what we can get out of it." Jesus himself said that following Him will result in abundant life. in fact, Jesus often brought up, and taught, the advantages (most of them eternal) of following Him. for many years, this kind of talk was very distasteful to me; my current pastor has taught me that its okay to recognize that there are rewards that come with being a faithful servant.

TK

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:01 pm

I don't know -- I would actually classify myself as an Arminian for lack of a better descriptor, and I have no problem declaring the majesty of the Lord. I think that's an oft-misperception of Arminians -- anyway, there's a big difference between declaring the majesty of the Lord, or in giving the Lord authority over every aspect of my own life (which I believe He gave us the ability to do in "most cases") and in us actually crowning Him -- that is, in us individually or collectively somehow actually giving Him the power over all the world (compared to our own lives, individually).

Put a little more succintcly, I can see visualizing myself crowning him as Lord over MY life in some poetic sense, but my issue is in seeing any of us individually or collectively crowning Him as Lord of all, etc.

Maybe it's semantics, but He already was the ruler over me before I accepted and acknowledged that fact. I believe that He just chose not to exercise that authority over certain aspects of my life until I wanted Him to.

Examples always fail, but if I immigrate to a country, I don't make its leaders sovereign over that country -- they already were. What I do is move myself under that sovereignty and willingly concede to that authority. Their actual authority didn't change. So, I guess though I love these hymns and love the general notion their trying to convey, I wish they would have been phrased a little diffferently.

After posting this, I did some we research, and it looks like hymnals over the years have modified these particular hymns over various objections (but not this particular one it seems).

Post by **_TK** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:23 pm

Darin-- i see more where you are coming from now. i dont have a problem with what you just posted; in fact i agree.

TK

Post by **_Homer** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:04 pm

We may disparage the idea that a person comes to Christ for "fire insurance", but did not Jesus encourage that very motivation through many warnings? Bernhard de Clairvoux, almost 1000 years ago suggested his "ladder of self-love" as follows:

1. Love of self for sake of self.

2. Love God for sake of self

3. Love God for sake of God

4. Love self for sake of God

I think most Christians begin at #2. Where do you think one becomes a Christian?