Catholic Influence on the SDA Hymnal?

Is it Fact, or Propaganda?

A Balanced SDA Perspective!!

By Derrick Gillespie

INTRODUCTION:

For a while now I have observed an increasing number of documents/papers appearing on the Internet,

put out mainly (not only) by vocal anti-Trinitarians either in Adventism or by those who have left

Adventism, claiming that the official 1985 Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal (see cover above) is laced

with Roman Catholicism, evidencing, in their view, that the SDA Church has come under the influence of

Jesuit infiltrators of SDA ranks of leadership, and is now apostate as it concerns becoming part of

Babylon (i.e. false religion and religious confusion). One popular article online (anonymously written)

puts it this way:

this new, strange, hymnal introduces into the Seventh-day Adventist divine worship service hymns and

Scripture readings containing Roman Catholic teachings not found in any earlier Adventist hymnal We

would be very nave if we did not believe that there are those within our Church, obviously in positions of

influence, who are working deceptively to change the very foundations of our faith. Since 1985, the SDA

church officially has a hymnal that Catholics would approve of and from which Adventists worship the

god of the beast system [i.e. the Trinity]. We can only call for repentance. We call on the General

Conference of S.D.A. to repent of and discard the current SDA hymnal, and replace it with a new, clean,

and pure Seventh-day Adventist church hymnal.

Catholicism in the new SDA Hymnal , 2007 (no named author affixed to the document)

Having taken the time to assess the so-called evidence of the Catholicization of the 1985 SDA

Hymnal, I have decided that it is necessary to do a review of these papers/documents making the claims,

and to do so from a balanced and objective SDA perspective. I aim to be more objective than the papers

I have seen, where most, if not all of these papers, despite pointing out certain things which are

definitely a cause for concern, they try to do overkill, or try to prove too much, while not being

balanced or evidencing the necessary insight needed to address certain moot issueseven trying to

denounce the Trinitarian type hymns, despite the SDA Church legitimately became Trinitarian during

Mrs. Whites time(*click to see), starting from the 1890s (if even becoming Trinitarian in the non-

traditional way in some things). I aim to show where the articles have a point (i.e. evidencing real

issues we should be concerned about as SDAs), and where they do not, i.e. evidencing overreaching,

or evidencing the authors being too accusatory, or evidencing simple misinterpretation on their part

as it concerns moot or ambiguous expressions in certain hymns.

I have come to realize that one can indeed be so "anti" something (e.g. anti-Catholic) that we can

overreach ourselves and 'throw out the baby with the baby water', or be so obsessed with being an

accuser of the brethren, that one can become overly paranoid, and so tend to 'see a demon under

every rock and behind every tree'. Starting from a position of objectivity, I can indeed say I see SOME

aspects of these articles as valid; not all!! And I aim to prove it with clear evidence that it is so. Because

there are some persons who will be led away by certain aspects of these articles that's actually unsound

and argued quite poorly by the accusers, and because there are those who may not have either the

resources at their disposal or the insight to see all the issues objectively (so as to be able to sift through

the article intelligently), I will therefore be providing a careful review of them, and others like them on

the Internet, so our SDA brethren can approach the issue with balance.

I do believe that the SDA Church is in a spiritual 'war' for truth and for hearts and souls, that the stakes

are high, and that our Church is/will certainly be coming under much attack, both from without as well

as from within, and both in overt and subtle ways (even as it is 'the apple of God's eye' and even while it

is sometimes enfeebled and erring too). Yet I am one careful to be balanced in my thinking, and so when

the SDA Church (or members therein) is in error or misguided on any issue I am willing to point it out,

but also I try not to be too much of an agent which is so aimed at being an "accuser of the brethren"

that it robs me of objectivity, and my role/responsibility to propagate and disseminate truth in a

balanced way as an SDA myself. With the foregoing now said, let me now begin my review.

MY HONEST ADMISSIONS:

Having taken the time to look at the variety of hymns that have been pointed out as problematic in the

1985 SDA Hymnal (i.e. in the view of the authors of the papers I earlier referred to), I must admit that

some (and not many either) do appear questionable, and they do cause one to raise ones eyebrows as

an objective SDA. I am not averse to the idea that Jesuit infiltration of the SDA Church MIGHT be the

cause for the insertion of certain traditionally Catholic-type hymns into the 1985 SDA Hymnal, but I am

also of the view that genuine oversight, on the part of the Hymnals selection committee at the

leadership level, MAY also account for the presence of certain questionable hymns borrowed from

hymnals of other Churches. It could be too that the committee innocently had not foreseen the possible

problems that could be caused by certain ambiguous phrases in certain hymns (hymns which for the

most part are true to SDA theology; seeing that SDAs do have several things in common with the

theology of other denominations). Near the end of this review I will supply a few examples I just cant

ignore as being questionable and or problematic, and show why they were worthy of being pointed

out by the critics and their documents under review. However, let me now begin to show clearly why

much of the claims regarding the so-called Catholicization of the SDA Hymnal are unsound or lack

teeth.

A: VARIETY OF BIBLE VERSIONS USED IN THE SDA HYMNAL- CATHOLIC INFLUENCE OR NOT?

It is claimed that the SDA Hymnal, in the back section featuring Bible readings (i.e. Nos. 696-920) relies

too heavily on faulty versions of the Bible, and presents more quotes from a Catholic version (namely

the Jerusalem Bible) than from the King James Version (KJV), which is deemed to be the best

Protestant bible. For instance, it is claimed:

the new hymnal uses a plethora of versions, the majority of which are greatly faulted versionsThe use

of the various Scripture versions is as follows: New International Version (NIV) 69 (31%), Jerusalem Bible

(a Roman Catholic Translation) 38 (17%), New King James Version (NKJV) 33 (14%), Revised Standard

Version (RSV) 28 (12%), New English Bible (NEB) 22 (10%), The Good News Bible (TEV, Todays English

Version) 15 (7%), King James Version (KJV) 15 (7%), New American Standard Bible (NASB) 4 (2%)It is

truly shocking that in our official church hymnal, the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible is used more than

2 times more than from the Protestant King James Version! The relegation of the King James Version to

less than 7% of the passages utilized, demonstrates a decided move away from the Bible of the English

Reformation and the Bible which established the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To cite the Roman

Catholic Jerusalem Bible well over twice as many times as the Protestant and much more accurate King

James Version, demonstrates a thinking that does Seventh-day Adventists no credit.

Catholicism in the new SDA Hymnal , 2007 (no named author affixed to the document)

Weaknesses in this Claim:

1. It is not true that the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic translation) is quoted more than the KJV, since the

stats presented by the above article itself prove plainly that the new KJV and the older KJV together

account for 21% of the quotes in the Bible readings at the back of the SDA Hymnal, when compared to

the 17% from the Jerusalem Bible (considered a Catholic version which bears the Apocryphal books).

In addition the variety of Bible versions that were not translated by Catholic authorities together

outweigh the 17% from the Jerusalem Bible (they all together total 83% of the quotes)

2. Quoting from different versions is not the issue (since SDAs, including Mrs. E.G. White, SDAs leading

pioneer and prophetess, have used a variety of versions). If what is quoted specifically does not change

the original sense of the Scripture, but it may present it in clearer or more up-to-date language for the

reader to understand, then I see no problem (translated by Catholics or not). The KJV is certainly

popular, and the old English language style is preferable by most SDAs, but it is not the only version that

is valid, since all versions have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of translation (including the KJV).

Plus the SDA Church is a global Church speaking several languages (hence demanding the use of Spanish,

French, Italian versions of the Bible, et al); not just the English KJV version.

3. Not many people realize that the original KJV Bible of 1611 actually had the Apocryphal books (*click

to see the evidence) and Catholic-type liturgical words like Easter (Acts 12:4) as used by the Roman

Catholic Church over the centuries (even today), and so to ELEVATE the original KJV as the best

Protestant bible is kind of being overly dramatic, since those same persons who make this claim would

not have accepted the Apocrypha or the word Easter, for instance, which was part of the very King

James Version they deem non-Catholic. The Bible version is not the real issue, but the doctrines we

teach from the 66 books considered Canonical!

In the end I think the claims made, based on percentage of Bible versions quoted, lack teeth and simply

smacks of conservatism and personal preference in terms of use of Bible versions, but they have not

proven either Catholic influence, neither doctrinal apostasy in this area of the use of various Bible

versions. Now lets look objectively at the specific hymns considered to be problematic but in fact are

in no way a problem for the balanced SDA, if one looks at all the facts and various considerations

objectively.

B: SPECIFIC HYMNS ASSESSED- PROBLEMATIC OR NOT?

Hymn No. 403 (Let Us Break Bread Together):

It is claimed that:

In this hymn abject sun worship is promoted. It is probably the best known of the aberrant hymns.

When I fall on my knees, With my face to the rising sun, O Lord, have mercy on me. This comes straight

out of Babylonian paganism.

Weaknesses in this Claim: While it is true that this song can easily be considered as triggering thoughts of literal sun worship, yet it can be deemed as ambiguous; and not a definite call to literal sun worship. Upon deep reflection and taking a number of things into consideration after doing some research, I think it may not be as aberrant as it is being made out to be by some with an accusative spirit. First, the song is clearly an American Negro Spiritual (coined by American Negroes, who were introduced to Jesus via *Protestant Christians of America; its not Catholic in authorship). Secondly, it is speaking of the Lords Supper or Communion Service while indirectly referencing Malachi 4:2 in the very Bible, where Jesus or God is portrayed in symbol as the Sun (Hebrew, shemesh) that arises with healing in his wings. And of course the sun rises in the east. To the Christian who knows God can be portrayed in symbol as the rising Sun, then its plain the words of No. 403 can be sung with no consideration of literal sun worship at all. Note carefully how the Bible gives the Christian the freedom to see God in this way symbolically: 2 Samuels 23:4 And he [God] shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain. Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [the sun] arise in your hearts [i.e. until Jesus comes the second time]

No wonder E.G. White made plain of Jesus, using the very rising sun imagery under focus:

The Sun of Righteousness [Jesus] did not burst upon the world in splendor, to dazzle the senses with His

glory. It is written of Christ, "His going forth is prepared as the morning" (Hosea 6:3). Quietly and gently

the daylight breaks upon the earth, dispelling the darkness and waking the world to life. So did the Sun of

Righteousness arise, "with healing in his wings" (Mal. 4:2)

- E.G White, The Ministry of Healing, pages 29-32

Thus while partaking of the Lords Supper or Communion we can legitimately sing the song No. 403,

while reverently and prayerfully (as if on our knees) considering Jesus (the crucified Lamb) as the Sun

of righteousness rising in symbolic imagery, as if from the east (as the very Bible so pictures it in

symbolic imagery), with healing in his wings. And yet no literal sun worship is in view. Its all a matter

of perspective, and hence the song is quite valid, biblically speaking!! Pity those taken up with being

accusers of the brethren never did their proper homework before launching into their accusations.

Hymn No. 142 (Angels We Have Heard on High):

It is claimed that:

In this hymn, verse four uplifts the Catholic notion that the dead are heavenly saints who can assist

us: Mary, Joseph, lend your aid, while we raise our hearts in love. This verse has no place in a true

Seventh- day Adventist Hymnal. In fact, this song was never found in earlier SDA hymnals. We should not

be invoking the aid of Mary.

Weaknesses in this Claim:

1. While it is true this song was not originally in the earlier SDA Hymnals (e.g. Christ in Song of 1900

and 1908) nothing says earlier hymnals were divinely compiled and new additions cant be made to suit

the purposes of the Church as it develops and grows doctrinally, experientially, as well as in terms of a

more diverse population of members.

2. Having carefully read the entire songnot just the line quotedit is clear to me that the author of

the song had his eye on all those singing praises to the newly born Jesus in Bethlehem AT THE TIME

(angels, and shepherds), and portrayed them and us (as if we are talking to them then at his birth)

requesting the parents of Jesus, i.e. Joseph and Mary at Jesus bedside (manger), to join in or lend their

voices in the chorus, and sing praises to the new born king (Mary, Joseph, lend your aid [i.e. in song],

while we raise our hearts in love). READ ALL FOUR VERSES OF THE SONG AND SEE!! I think it is an

overactive imagination that surmises that this is a call to get spiritual aid or help from dead saints acting

as mediators in heaven today in the tradition of Catholic doctrine. Proper literature analysis of the

whole song proves nothing of the sort was being urged!! Plus, even if that line in the song could be so

interpreted in the mind of a Catholic while singing it, the fact is no SDA singing that line ever has the

slightest thought of soliciting aid from dead saints, since it is not part of the SDA theology.

Trinity-related Hymns like Nos. 27, 30, 73, 47, 71, 72, etc. are given the greatest attention.

It is claimed:

Never before in any SDA Hymnal was there an entire section of hymns dedicated to THE TRINITY. This

hymnal has at least twelve such hymns, which designates it as acceptable to Babylon (the Roman

Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches).

Weaknesses in this Claim:

The writers of many of the articles charging the SDA Hymnal with containing Catholic sentiments are

basically anti-Trinitarians who have not come to grips with the real truth about Adventism gradually

accepting Trinitarianism since the 1890s and before 1915 (but not necessarily accepting all the

traditional explanations of the NATURE of the Trinity). This 1890s to the early 1900s acceptance of

Trinitarian sentiments explains why Trinitarian-type hymns could be freely added to the SDA hymnal

after the 1890s and the early 1900s (i.e. decades before 1985), in line with SDA theology that THE

Church gradually grew into even while Mrs. E.G. White was alive.

The 1900 and 1908 SDA hymnal called Christ in Song, as compiled by SDA pioneer F.E Belden (*click

link to see), had the following Trinitarian-type prayer song being sung by SDAs DURING MRS. WHITES

TIME--addressing directly the personal and divine Holy Spirit-- as well as another worship and praise

song pointedly and explicitly praising the Eternal Three:

No. 104 (Hover Oer me Holy Spirit) in the SDA Christ in Song of 1900:

Hover oer me, Holy Spirit, Bathe my trembling heart and brow; Fill me with Thy hallowed presence,

Come, O come and fill me now At Thy sacred feet I bow; Blest, divine, eternal Spirit, Fill with powr, and

fill me now

No. 296 (Praise ye the Father) in the SDA Christ in Song of 1900 (verse 3):

Praise ye the Spirit, Comforter of Israel, Sent of the Father and the Son to bless us.

Praise ye the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Praise ye the Eternal Three!

Prayer songs directly addressed to the Spirit as personal and divine are Trinitarian practices, and praising

Father, Son and Spirit as the separately named Eternal Three is inescapably Trinitarian-type worship,

and we see clearly that the SDA pioneers already had this Trinitarian-type of worship captured in the

1900 Christ in Song Hymnal (15 years before the death of E.G. White). In fact, in the 1908 version of

Christ in Song (a Hymnal Mrs. White would have also sung from), there is a section of the Contents

called Praise to *the Trinity (page 6), with three distinct Trinitarian songs listed there (Nos. 470, 377,

& 354), and this fact effectively debunks the accusers claiming that Never before [1985] in any SDA

Hymnal was there an entire section of hymns dedicated to THE TRINITY!! See the real truth proving

otherwise in the actual Xeroxed/photocopied page below (see the left side of page 6, just left of the

column with The Rest Day [Sabbath] and Sabbath School songs).

Thus the later addition of more Trinitarian-type songs to SDA hymnals was a natural and logical

outgrowth of that doctrinal development during Mrs. Whites time. Pity the accusers of the brethren

would not research more carefully before bringing their accusations, and misinforming the public as

well.

Ever remember that the term trinity (a synonym of trio), the doctrines (in their rudimentary form) of

the personal Holy Spirit, as well as the Trinity consisting of an Eternal Three who are worthy of equal

praise, these teachings all pre-dated the Roman Catholic Church by several centuries (a doctrine it did

not invent but inherited from early Christians, when it came on the scene after the fourth century),

and so it is not Roman Catholic liturgy alone to speak of the Trinity, but rather it is very Christian in

every way (matters not the dissenters or detractors). I have written much about the reality of anti-

Trinitarian dissidents in Adventism or apostates from Adventism continuing to kick against the pricks

as it concerns Trinitarianism in Adventism (*click the link to see). Some of their accusative sentiments

are being adopted by even certain bonafide Trinitarian SDAs, and these sentiments can only be seen for

what they are--groundless!once we are armed with the proper knowledge of Church history and what

the Bible really teaches about the Godhead of the three holiest beings in heaven (as E.G. White

expressed it). See a solid library of literature I have prepared to arm any SDA to answer these anti-

Trinitarians (*click link).

Hymn No. 194 (Sing We of the Modern City)

It is claimed:

This hymn has this strange wording: Christ is present, and among us; In the crowd we see Him stand.

In the bustle of the city Jesus Christ is every man.

Weaknesses in this Claim:

Despite not much was said about this hymn by the critics I read, except to say it has a strange wording,

yet it is presented in the overall presentation of the accusers as evidence of Catholicization of the

SDA hymnal, and yet it has not been proven why it is so. Jesus made plain in Matthew 24:34-45 that to

do good to any of the least human is to have done it unto him, since we are his brethren he is one

with, as the second Adam (see 1 Cor. 12:12 with Heb. 2:11). Thus to the Christian, Christ is indeed seen

in every man in need, on the street or in the bustle of the city, and since every man is in need of at least

the gospel of salvation, then we can see that the song is not strange at all, but has a powerful message

about our duty to all men Christ died for. And to not minister to them is as if we did harm to Jesus

himself.

Scripture Reading, No. 756 (from Psalm 51:5, NIV)

It is claimed that:

[It] teaches the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin! That the compilers of this hymnal would prefer the NIV

translation of Psalm 51:5, with its blatant distortion of Scripture in order to uphold the disgraceful concept of

original sin, is unconscionable. It reads thus: Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my

mother conceived me.From Psalm 51:5, N.I.V.

Weaknesses in this Claim:

What I said earlier about translations of the Bible is again applicable here too. While we many may be

used to and prefer the reading of Psalm 51:5 in the KJV, yet the idea that at birth we are already born

sinful in terms of a state of estrangement from God, or having an already fallen and polluted mind

which will commit sin at the very first opportunity, is what is accurately captured by the NIV, at least in

this instance!! To be called a sinner at birth, its not a description of guilt in terms of sins (acts of

disobedience) committed, or so-called original sin which babies can be freed from by infant baptism,

as taught by Catholics, but rather its a state of being in terms of inherited polluted propensities. It is

standard SDA teaching that this is so, and its based on the Bible saying plainly:

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking

lies.

Clearly the inspired writer David is speaking in Psalm 51:5 of the STATE of being born in "sin" or with an

already polluted propensity that is already inclined to commit acts of sin, since the verses following (6-

10) has him appealing to God to cleanse his MIND or propensity where the problem lies from birth!!

This gives a glimpse of the fact that humans are by nature born with the innate/inherited leaning

towards doing wrong, and that is why David under inspiration make the points:

"Psalm 58:2 Yea, in heart [mind] ye work wickedness.....

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is NOT teaching "original sin" in the sense that babies are already born guilty of acts of sin, but rather it is teaching that babies are already born with a MIND tainted with the polluted inclination to act out sinful behavior at the first chance!! There's a world of difference here, and true Bible students need to know it!!

I must make the reader aware that the official SDA Encyclopedia makes the point about sin being ALSO an inborn state (not just acts of disobedience), by it putting it this way:

"Sin as a *State -The biblical concept of sin further portrays its complexity by describing it as a state. Sin not only pervades the whole person but it takes abode in the human heart (Rom. 7:20)....Paul shows that sin is not simply an act, a moral failure, or even an abnormal force. Sin is a demonic power that invades the human heart and reigns there. It becomes the controlling power of the thoughts, emotions, and actions of the individual. Paul uses expressions such as flesh (Rom. 8:6) and the law of sin (verse 2) to indicate that sin is a state with its seat in the human heart, and from there it controls the outward activities of the individual. The flesh is not simply the body; the law of sin is not simply a series of rules. The flesh is human nature apart from God; the law of sin is the status of rebellion against God. It is this nature and status, in perpetual rebellion against God and wanting to overthrow God from ones life, that constitutes sin as a state"

- Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, Electronic edition, Review and Herald Publishing Association

It is a failure to even understand standard SDA doctrine since the days of the pioneers why the modern

accusers of the brethren would cite the Bible reading No. 756 to be so-called teaching Catholic

doctrine of original sin, i.e. in terms of initial infant guilt which Catholics believe can be removed by

infant baptism. The NIV version of Psalm 51:5 that was quoted teaches no such thing, and the SDA

Church teaches no such thing. Its the explanation of a teaching that matters!! Now, while babies have

not committed acts of sin, or sinned in the normal action sense of the word, yet it cannot be said that

babies are free from this sinful STATE of mind David talks about, and hence why even babies growing

into becoming intelligent children, need to be taught as soon as they have the ability to understand,

that *as children they too need Jesus in order to be born again (John 3:3, 5-7) and be saved from sin and

the enslaving mind to commit sin. SDA s believe that babies, because of their innocence in terms of

never committing acts of sin, will be saved in the kingdom because of Jesus' sacrificial death for us all,

yet it must be recognized that SDA teaching also recognizes that babies too are born with a mind already

inclined to sin, and so they too will need that change of mind through grace, but only as soon as they

become self-aware and reach the age of accountability (not while they are babies; explaining why SDAs

do NOT practice infant baptism like some do in contradistinction to what the Bible teaches)!! SDAs

promoting the Catholic doctrine of original sin as they teach it? Not in the least!!

C: ATTACKING THE CHARACTER OF HISTORICAL CHRISTIAN SONGWRITERS

In the true style of being accusers of the brethren, it is claimed by the authors of the papers under

review that because certain Christians throughout history may have had character weaknesses, or

engaged in certain shady activities, or had certain faulty viewpoints in certain doctrinal points, or simply

belonged to the Catholic Church, then their songs/hymns should be frowned upon as pariah in nature,

and be deemed as not belonging in the SDA hymnal, even if the songs in themselves do not oppose or

misrepresent any doctrine of the Bible. Thats faulty reasoning, and poor polemics. We take each

song/hymn on its own merit and biblical soundnessnot throw out the song/hymn simply because it

was written by a Catholic, or a historical Christian personage who might have shady aspects to his

past, or questionable viewpoints in certain areas of doctrine unrelated to the song. Isnt it plain that

we cannot relate to people who are Christian song writers that way, who wrote songs to glorify God or

to bring focus to certain biblical themes?

D: VALID POINTS BY THE ACCUSERS

While I am sure I have not dealt with every single case or hymn presented as problematic which really

arent so (and remember more cases may surface even after the time of my writing this review), yet I

am sure I have dealt with the most significant cases revealing faulty polemics, limited insight, and

misunderstanding or misinterpretation of issues on the part of the accusers, and I have laid out some

assessment principles to be applied when we confront other cases of so-called problematic hymns. But

what about hymns or aspects of the 1985 SDA Hymnal that are genuinely problematic? As I said at the

beginning of this review, there are some areas of concern in the 1985 SDA Hymnal that I had to raise my

eyebrows over, and I will now be fair and objective and present these too; not just the hymns or aspects

of the Hymnal I had an answer for.

Roman Catholic-type liturgical terms and Latin expressions- It is certainly true that the 1985 SDA

Hymnal has a surprising level of traditionally Catholic expressions and Latin-based language introduced

thats clearly NOT of the SDA tradition in worship or expression, and include:

Canticles and Prayers No. 833 shows this fact by its Latin designation, the Sanctus (even the term

Canticles is traditionally Roman Catholic-style terminology for songs)

No. 835 is termed the Magnificat,

No. 836 the Benedictus,

No. 837 the Nunc Dimittis, and

No. 832 the De Profundis.

Seventh-day Adventists have never heard of many of these Latin terms in its hymn book before!

Granted, in some of the cases listed above, it is pointed out that certain innocent Bible readings (some

being hymns as well) are commonly called this or that in Latin (e.g. Magnificat or Benedictus), and

if the intent was to inform, then fine, but it still raises an eyebrow as to why some cases did not say it

that way but simply affixed the Latin term in normal Catholic style, as if it is the normal SDA thing to do.

Not disastrous in my book (if the hymn or Bible reading itself is sound in content), but it still is

questionable as to why this influx of Roman Catholic liturgical terminology since 1985. One school of

thought is that since the Christian Reformation (as led by Martin Luther, et al) saw the Protestant

Churches having some of their traditional hymns and their related liturgical terms being brought away

from the Roman Catholic Church, then many of these were retained in the Anglican, Lutheran, and

Methodist hymnody and hymnals, for instance, and so when SDAs borrowed a greater number of

songs/hymns and hymnal styles from these non-Catholic Churches, the retained style and format of

their hymnody came over too. I however feel that since a selection committee had oversight in the

selection and formatting of the SDA Hymnal they could have been more sensitive to the problems of

perception (i.e. how things are perceived) that might be caused by too much Roman Catholic sounding

expressions, or liturgical terms being introduced to the SDA brethren. It could be a genuine oversight on

their part, or it could be other forces at work. Who knows? But it is certainly questionable!! No denying

that.

Hymn No. 471 (Grant Us Your Peace)

I certainly agree with those who pointed it out that this song is problematic for an SDA hymnal. First

the song smacks of too much vain repetitions that Jesus warned us not to engage in when we pray,

even in a prayer song: Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for

they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Secondly, this a classic case of too much use of Latin expressions as connected to the Roman Catholic style of worship, and I find this songs inclusion in the SDA hymnal quite bothersome, and strongly believe it should be removed. Granted, the Latin words are translated in English in one of the stanzas of the hymn, and those words in and of themselves are innocent sounding (matters not if a Catholic can/may sing those words and consider the Pope as Father; SDAs would never sing the song with that in view) but being a song with the problems I cited above, and being hardly used in SDA congregations (as far as I know), then it means it should be removed. Hymn No. 402 (By Christ Redeemed):

Protestants certainly believe that the communion bread and unfermented grape juice are symbols of Christ flesh and blood, but Catholics believe that these symbols literally become Jesus himself at the Communion. George Rawson, the author of this hymn, did NOT write Is here, but is shown in the

line which now reads in the SDA Hymnal His broken body in our stead is here, in this memorial bread. I find it problematic because the change of the words leans too heavily to mean what Roman Catholics teach, and it will continue to be problematic to insightful brethren and it should be removed, or changed back to the original is shown. Keep in mind that Jesus did speak in literal sounding language when he said: John 6:53-56 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Yet we KNOW he is speaking symbolically (so his body is not literally in the bread) just like he spoke in other literal sounding ways like I am the door, or I am the vine and ye are the branches. Hymns with words like We taste Thee, O thou living Bread, and long to feast upon thee still; We drink of Thee, the Fountainhead, and thirst our souls from thee to fill are clearly symbolic in intent, in terms of how John 6:53-56 portrays the imagery as if literal, but not literal. But to change the words of song No. 402 to make it seem that at the Communion Jesus body is here literally in the bread (as Catholics teach), this is problematic indeed, and the SDA Hymnal should have that corrected.

Hymn No. 91 (Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones)

I close my review by admitting that indeed this song does not belong in the SDA hymnal, since the second stanza certainly identifies Mary in Catholic tradition, and solicits her, as if shes in heaven today, to lead the angelic praises to the Lord. It cannot be shown to identify anyone else but Mary (in the tradition of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches seeing her as Queen of heaven)!! It is a disappointing inclusion in the Hymnal, and I cannot but wonder how it got there (Jesuit infiltration or gross oversight??). It plainly says in the second verse:

O higher than the Cherubim, More glorious than the Seraphim, Lead their [i.e. the angelic] praises, Alleluia. Thou bearer of the Eternal Word [i.e. Mary], Most gracious. Magnify the Lord. Alleluia, alleluia, alleulia.

This is seems like pure invocation of Mary Queen of Heaven in the Orthodox Church and Catholic,

since, as the critics of the SDA Hymnal potently point out [inserts in brackets mine]:

comparison to the hymnody of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (particularly, the Axios Estin)

makes this certain: It is truly appropriate to call you blessed, The Theotokos, the ever-blessed and all-

immaculate, and Mother of God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more

glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you bore God the Word . . . In various printed works, the

author of the hymn (Athelstan Riley) encouraged Anglicans to consider a reunion with the Orthodox

churches [Orthodox Church members certainly worship Mary like Catholics do].

I CANNOT deny the potency of this argument from the critics, and strongly feel that Hymn No. 91 should be removed from the Hymnal (whether its there as a result of a genuine oversight or not).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

In the end I have shown that most of the arguments charges of the critics concerning the 1985 SDA Hymnal to be groundless, but there are certainly some areas in which they do have a point, and since the SDA Church is not infallible, I do believe that in the areas of weakness and genuine oversights in the Hymnal the corrections should be made in the future. In the meantime, I join no independent or dissident movement to call for a rejection of the Hymnal, since it is NOT all bad in an overwhelming way as the accusers of the brethren make it out to be, and the areas that are problematic can be either bypassed or corrected (hopefully soon), once we are aware of those areas of weakness. -----THE END-----

------------------------------------------------------------

Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs. (Contact Info: ddgillespie@live.com OR https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie)