By Isaac N. Hopper

Introduction

Every denominational expression of the Church of Jesus Christ has a set of doctrinal standards upon which beliefs and practices are built and against which they are measured. Doctrinal standards serve, at various times, to define public expressions of shared belief, to instruct those new to the faith, to confront errant theology, ethics, and practice (also often conforming these to a specific standard), and to guard faith traditions, which have been handed down through the generations. In all of these ways, doctrinal standards have been utilized to establish and maintain boundaries—or, if you will, borders—for faith communities. They mark out the theological territory of a particular group and help to define who is on the inside of the border, and therefore part of the community, and who is outside the border, whether friend or foe.

There is a sense in which doctrinal standards are understood to be static – they are usually very difficult to change, once established. One reason for this is that they are often formalized (or codified) in such a way that their authority is recognized as absolute by the faith tradition in which they have been formed. They become part of the core identity of the community, an immutable tenet which distinguishes this group from that group.

Early Methodism was no different from other faith traditions in its appeals to doctrinal standards. Indeed, as an eighteenth-century renewal movement, the Methodist Societies adopted and thoroughly confessed the doctrinal standards of the Church of England in their worship, instruction, and practice. These formal doctrinal standards included the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Homilies. However, in the case of early Methodism these long-held doctrinal standards of the Church of England were eventually adapted (read changed) into the Articles of Religion, Sunday Service, and Wesley’s Sermons for the use of American Methodists. In truth, the Wesleys had already been working to establish uniquely Methodist doctrine long before American independence prompted contextualized versions of these doctrinal standards. Even so, Methodist doctrine was always intended to build upon those of the Church of England, even while adding a distinctive emphasis on the Wesleyan core doctrines of repentance, faith, and holiness.[1] In other words, the goal was not to create a new system of doctrine, but rather to interpret what was already there in the light of a Wesleyan understanding of Christian faith.

The changing of previously agreed upon doctrinal standards by a group within a Christian faith tradition tends to get people hot under the collar, as it should. To do this is, in a sense, to adopt a new corporate identity. It should come as no surprise then when such a move results in the fragmentation of the larger group. And so faith communities guard their doctrinal standards by enshrining them in Constitutions, Resolutions, Confessions, and Books of Discipline. In other words, most Christian faith traditions are very careful about what to include in, or exclude from, their formalized doctrine.

But, this is not always the case with more informal doctrinal authorities which, though perhaps not recognized as authoritative in the same way as articles of religion or creeds might be, nevertheless can carry the weight of enormous authority and influence, especially in the establishment and maintenance of practical-theological boundaries for faith communities.

Consider for a moment the importance of liturgy, catechesis, and even the church calendar in shaping the doctrinal awareness of many local churches. While these may not be formally recognized as doctrinally authoritative, they are tools used for teaching the faith and shaping both the thoughts and practices of the community, and in so doing they communicate doctrine. One could conceivably identify as many examples of these informal doctrinal standards as there are different expressions of Christ’s Church, but few have risen to the prominent place of music in the everyday lives of Christians. For many Christians around the world, the songs sung together in worship and privately in homes represent one of the most profoundly influential sources of doctrine, by which Christians are formed on a regular basis.

Wesleyan Hymnody in Early Methodism

Randy Maddox has helpfully distinguished between these formal and informal doctrinal authorities, particularly as they relate to early Methodism.[2] First-order theological activities, which include but are not limited to liturgy, catechism, sermons, and hymns, are intended to shape the beliefs, affections, and character of Christians, while second-order normative theological activities (often resulting from first-order activities), comprise the task of defining a Christian worldview. These second-order activities tend to produce systematic theologies and the like. Wesley, taking his cues from early leaders in the Church of England, preferred to underscore theology as a practical discipline, which is why never worked to produce a comprehensive volume of doctrinal claims as a second-order normative activity, but rather devoted himself to the production of first-order materials intended to help shape the hearts and imaginations, and thereby the actions, of Christians.

For Christians who had their faith formed by the early Methodist Societies in England, hymns were a constant part of that formative process. The volume of hymns produced by the Wesley’s during their lifetime has been estimated at around 6,500.[3] This is, of course, largely due to the poetic talent of Charles Wesley. Frank Baker estimated Charles’ total output of verse to nearly 9,000 poems, his tremendous gift allowing him to write, on average, ten lines of poetry every day for 50 years.[4] But Charles wasn’t the only Wesley brother who contributed to Methodist hymnody. By 1737 John Wesley had already published A Collection of Hymns and Psalms for use by the American Colonies, the first Methodist hymnal.[5] He drew from many sources for this early work, but one should not overlook his own substantial contributions. He made careful work of compiling this first hymnbook, testing its use in worship and discussing its content with friends, as well as translating hymns from other languages to English, adding his own creativity to the task of ensuring the poetic quality and message remained intact.

Evidence from Wesley’s Georgia diaries suggests the earliest Methodist hymns for which we have a record were translated from German by John Wesley in 1736.[6] The Wesley brothers went on to publish dozens of hymn-books for the use of the Methodist Societies. Some were general collections and others were produced in response to specific world events, special occasions, seasons in the church calendar, or theological themes.

Not only were the Wesley’s notable for the volume of the hymns they produced, they were also unique in the prominence given to the hymns in the life of the Societies. Prior to the Methodist revival, the singing of hymns apart from the Psalms was not a common part of corporate worship in England, although they were sung in some religious societies at the time.[7] Wesley, who was influenced by these societies, by Isaac Watts, and later by the Moravians introduced hymn singing to the Methodists in Oxford, then in Georgia, and finally began incorporating the singing of hymns in services when he preached, after returning to England. In time, the Wesleyan hymns were being sung at every public gathering of the Methodist Societies, and were also being used in private devotions. They were both inspirational, helping Methodist Christians express their faith, and formational, serving to teach doctrine and form belief and practice.

The Unique Place of the 1780 Collection in Methodist Hymnody

Out of all the hymn books published jointly by John and Charles Wesley, one stands out as expressly representative of the doctrinal standards of the Methodist Societies and uniquely authoritative in shaping the thoughts and practices of early Methodists.[8] In his preface to the 1780 Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists, John Wesley defined two primary goals in his production of a new hymn-book. His first goal was to produce a hymn- book which was sufficient enough to replace the myriad hymnals already in circulation and so become the only volume needed by members of the Methodist Societies, while remaining small enough to be affordable for the poor among them. His second goal was for the Collection to become a comprehensive body of doctrine for the use of teaching, exhorting, and encouraging the Methodist Societies. Accordingly, the hymns were arranged as a narrative of the common experiences and expectations of the Christian life. Wesley believed the 1780 Collection filled the bill. He wrote,

“It is large enough to contain all the important truths of our most holy religion, whether speculative or practical; yea, to illustrate them all, and to prove them both by Scripture and reason . . . [T]his book is in effect a little body of experimental and practical divinity.”[9]

John Wesley as Editor

The 1780 Collection is not only unique among other volumes of Wesleyan hymnody because of John Wesley’s specific goals for it, but also because of his exclusive role as compiler and editor of the volume. Wesley naturally took great care with the editing of his own writings, such as his letters, sermons, journals, and the like. What may be surprising is the great deal of care he put into the oversight of other Methodist publications. Wesley made it a rule that none of his preachers were permitted to publish anything without his express consent, and though he relaxed this rule briefly in 1780 the resulting publications concerned him so much that he quickly reinstated the ban on such unedited material.[10]

Wesley exercised this same level of oversight in the publishing of his Christian Library, stating that his purpose in producing the extracts was ‘to select whatever I had seen most valuable in the English language and either abridge or take the whole tracts, only a little corrected or explained, as occasion should require.’[11] This he accomplished to varying degrees of success. While his editor’s pen was visible throughout each volume, he at times allowed material into the Library that directly contrasted with what he was teaching elsewhere. In one such instance, when an error was pointed out by opponents, Wesley refuted their accusations by explaining that he was not the author of the extracts, merely their editor, and was not, therefore, in agreement with everything they contained.[12] However, as Thomas Herbert has duly noted, Wesley still carried the burden of transmitting uncorrected texts:

He [Wesley] may have protested that the writings were not his own and that the questionable passages would be counterbalanced by the force of his own writings. But the fact remained that he had undertaken to purge the works of error and had failed to do so. By setting his hand to the task of abridging he inevitably entailed responsibility for the result; and people had a perfectly sound right to father him with it.[13]

Such editorial oversight was not common for Wesley, and his concern for the ramifications of such errors stand as testimony to the seriousness with which he approached the editorial task.

Charles Wesley was perhaps the only person whose judgment John trusted in matters of editorial import, and this only so far as it concerned material of a poetic nature.[14] In a letter to Walter Churchey dated October 18, 1777 Wesley described his plans for the Arminian Magazine saying, ‘We agree that no politics shall have a place in the Arminian Magazine. But poetry will; only my brother and I are judges to what pieces shall be admitted.’[15] Yet while John respected his brother’s abilities and judgment as a poet, John Wesley was solely responsible for the selection and editing of the hymns that would come to comprise the 1780 Collection.[16]

Hymnody as Border Agent

One final attribute of the 1780 Collection sets it apart as unique among the many volumes of Wesleyan hymnody and also bears significance for the topic of borders. Up to this point, the emphasis has been on the authority of doctrinal standards for the establishment and maintenance of practical-theological boundaries. The Wesleyan hymns certainly served those functions for early Methodism. However, somewhat paradoxically, the hymns in general and the 1780 Collection in particular, may also be useful aids in the task of overcoming the borders that divide different Christian faith communities.

This is because many hymns are a form of doxological speech, meaning they are composed of language which praises, rather than merely describes, God. What makes hymns particularly useful as doxological speech is that they tend to transcend theological differences, where other forms of theological exposition may be peculiar to a particular confessing group. Though diverse groups may not be able to overcome theological differences easily, they are very often able to worship and sing hymns together, even though the hymns may be of a theological nature. This is partly because hymnody transcends theological traditions and partly because the nature of hymnody is more fluid, in the sense that it is less resistant than some other traditions to change over time.[17]

Hymns are by no means the only texts which contain doxological speech, neither are all hymns doxological in nature. What makes the 1780 Collection unique among the other Wesleyan hymn books with regard to this idea, is the near exclusivity of doxological speech contained within it. Teresa Berger described this phenomenon in her analysis of the Wesleyan hymns and attributed it to a combination ‘on the one hand, of the particular experience of faith at the heart of this collection and, on the other hand, of the selection process used for this hymnbook.’[18]

  In the end, hymns which are doxological in nature provide a unique tool for bridging theological divides among different faith communities. At the same time, the careful selection, editing, and ordering of doxological hymns, exhibited by Wesley in the creation of the 1780 Collection, served to establish and maintain the practical-theological borders of the Methodist Societies. In this way, the hymns are analogous to a border agent, whose duty it is to both protect the clearly defined borders of a country or region, and also to help facilitate the peaceful navigation of those borders by persons who live on either side of it.

Theology and Function of Modern Hymnody

Christian faith communities have changed considerably since the Eighteenth Century. One of the more surprising aspects of the changing landscape of the church in the West is that, while theological differences still create divides between and even among faith communities of all types, these diverse and even contentious communities are more and more often singing the same songs. The rise of the worship slides carrying the seemingly ubiquitous Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) stamp in services across denominations in the United States, and the proliferation of non-denominationally affiliated Christian radio both attest to the blurred lines between the songs that Christians sing and the doctrinal convictions of different Christian communities.

One can also find more diversity when it comes to more traditional types of Christian songs, which still often appear in the form of hymn books placed in the back of church seats or pews. While many denominations have produced their own hymnals, these often incorporate songs from a variety of faith traditions. And, in some cases, individual congregations within a denomination prefer to use hymnals and other song books which have been produced by non- denominational organizations within their ordinary practice of worship.

So far as these songs are examples of doxological speech, this common body of contemporary hymnody should be seen as a positive development and may yet assist with the task of unifying the church, in all its diversity. However, as this short analysis of early Methodist hymnody has demonstrated, not all songs should be viewed as equally beneficial, nor should all Christian songs be used with equanimity in corporate, or perhaps even private, worship.

Even when those songs have been produced by the same faith tradition, some may represent doxological speech, while others do not; some may promote doctrine which is consistent with the formally stated beliefs of the faith tradition, while others do not; some should be viewed as authoritative, while others should not. In other words, not all hymns are doctrinally equivalent, but all hymns have equal opportunity to shape the thoughts and behaviors of Christians who sing them.

A Contemporary Example

At the risk of pointing a finger and appearing less than gracious, let’s briefly consider a contemporary example of what can happen, when we fail to consider carefully which songs we sing in worship. As we near Easter, churches across the world are already selecting the songs that will be sung to express the Passion of Christ and his resurrection, and to offer hope to a world filled with darkness that the light of Christ has not been defeated, but has instead prevailed.

Many beautiful and compelling hymns and praise songs have been written to help the people of God recall the story of Easter and to express the confident hope we have in Christ.

One such song, which has regained popularity in recent years is Stuart Townend’s inspiring praise hymn, How Deep the Father’s Love for Us. This song, which acknowledges the sinfulness of humanity and our complete dependence upon the cross for salvation, has been sung in churches across denominational lines, including those of a Wesleyan persuasion. Christian doctrine is proclaimed in every line, but not all of that doctrine is consistent with Wesleyan theology. The opening stanza reads,

“How deep the Father’s love for us,
How vast beyond all measure,
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.
How great the pain of searing loss –
The Father turns His face away,
As wounds which mar the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory.”[19]

The sixth line evokes Jesus’ cry of dereliction from the cross, which is recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus’ words here evoke Psalm 22, which opens with a cry of anguish towards God by the Psalmist, who fears that God is far away and has not heard his plea for rescue. Drawing from this imagery, the author of this song has imagined God turning away from Jesus, unable to look upon him, because of the sins he carried for the world in that moment. On the surface, this imagery appears consistent with the sentiment of Habakkuk 1:13, where the prophet declares that God is too pure to look on evil. But really, it conveys a superficial reading of Psalm 22 and promotes a theology inconsistent with the God of rescue, which the song seeks to praise.

To be sure, Psalm 22 begins with a lonely cry asking God why he is so far away, why he hasn’t heard the cries of the Psalmist, and why he hasn’t been delivered like Israel had been, when they put their trust in God.

“2 Every day I call to you, my God, but you do not answer.
Every night I lift my voice, but I find no relief.
4 Our ancestors trusted in you, and you rescued them.
5 They cried out to you and were saved.
They trusted in you and were never disgraced.
6 But I am a worm and not a man.
I am scorned and despised by all!”

The Psalmist continues to wrestle with this sense of abandonment, even while attempting to reconcile his plight with what he knows of the God who saves. And, if one were to stop reading before the conclusion, one could easily conclude that the Psalmist’s final call for help in verse 19, “O Lord, do not stay far away!” will go unanswered, because God has turned away from his suffering servant. But, just three verses later, the Psalmist abruptly changes course in his narrative. What began as a cry of dereliction becomes instead a declaration of confident faith that God has not abandoned him, at all:

“22 I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters.
I will praise you among your assembled people.
23 Praise the Lord, all you who fear him!
Honor him, all you descendants of Jacob!
Show him reverence, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not ignored or belittled the suffering of the needy.
He has not turned his back on them, but has listened to their cries for help.”

With this shift, one can observe that the Psalmist’s cry of verse 1 has been answered decisively. God has not turned his back on his suffering servant. He has listened to his cry for help and has vindicated him! When Jesus spoke verse one of Psalm 22 from the cross, it was with with the full knowledge that the Father had heard his cry, the cry of an innocent, and had already acted decisively on his behalf. While Psalm 22 ends with praise and thanksgiving that God has not abandoned his suffering servant, the praise song noted earlier leaves the listener in doubt as to God’s relationship to sinners. Rather than offering a description of the God who saves, it sends the message that, in a sinner’s greatest hour of need, God will be an absentee Father, unable even to look at his child, much less able to rescue the distressed. This promotes a very specific doctrinal view and agenda, but not a Wesleyan one.

In his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, John Wesley commented on both of the passages of scripture which relay Jesus’ cry of dereliction. In his notes on Matthew 27:46 Wesley stated that Jesus was, first, declaring his continued trust in God and, second, expressing his sense that God had withdrawn his grace in that moment, allowing Jesus to experience the weight of God’s wrath for the sins he bore on the cross.[20] In his comments on Mark 15:34, Wesley said that God had withdrawn his ‘tokens of his love’ from Jesus, which could be synonymous with a sense of God’s absence, but indicates it is God who made this happen. And then he added that God treated Jesus like an enemy in that moment.[21] This is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst. Fortunately, one finds theological clarity in the 1780 Collection of hymns.

“My sufferings all to thee are known, Tempted in every point like me; Regard my grief, regard thy own; Jesus, remember Calvary!
O call to mind thy earnest prayers! Thy agony and sweat of blood!
Thy strong and bitter cries and tears! Thy mortal groan, ‘My God, my God!’…
Have I not heard, have I not known, That thou, the everlasting Lord,
Whom heaven and earth their Maker own, Are always faithful to thy word?
Thou wilt not break a bruised reed
Or quench the smallest spark of grace Till through the soul thy power is spread, Thy all-victorious righteousness.
With labour faint thou wilt not fail, Or wearied give the sinner o’er,
Till in this earth thy judgments dwell, And born of God I sin no more.“[22]

This hymn echoes the anguished cry of the Psalmist and pleads with Christ to remember his own experience under the weight of the world’s sin and begs for rescue. But, unlike the praise song which leaves the singer in doubt as to God’s relationship to sinners, this hymn clearly declares that God is faithful to his promises, and will not abandon the one in need. It communicates a thoroughly Wesleyan understanding of God’s grace and mercy, offered freely to sinners in need.

Conclusion: Where do we go from here?

The example just cited may present too fine a point for some, but hopefully it illustrates the need for an intentional approach to choosing songs for the use of Christian communities. Significant attention is usually given to organizing, understanding, and articulating second- order doctrinal standards and to ensuring they faithfully represent the worldview of the Christian faith traditions in which they have been formed. The same care should be given to first-order doctrinal authorities like hymns. Few Christians will directly engage with second- order doctrine on a regular basis, but most contemporary Christians will sing theological songs as part of their public worship and private devotions.

The Wesley’s understood that the songs Christians sing are important. The Wesleyan hymnody held a special place in the doctrinal and practical formation of early Methodists. The hymns served to establish guidelines for doctrinal understanding, set expectations for common Christian experience, and gave expression to the faithful witness of the Church. They both marked out and stood sentry over the practical-theological borders of the Methodist movement, articulating the voice and vocation of the societies. The hymns also became a vehicle through which Methodism was conveyed to the masses and through which Christians were formed in their homes, by shaping the hearts and imaginations of those who sang them, leading to transformed beliefs and behaviors. John Wesley’s care and attention to detail in his production of the 1780 Collection, in particular, illustrates the serious concern he had for the songs his people sang to be thoroughly Wesleyan in their theology.

The songs we sing in public worship and private devotions play a significant role in defining the practical-theological boundaries of diverse Christian faith communities and in the formation of Christian disciples. When carefully considered, worship songs can teach, convict, exhort, and encourage those who sing them, all while giving voice to the praise of God. In the best of cases, they can even provide fertile ground for ecumenical engagement. Together with other first-order and second-order doctrinal standards, hymns provide a ready tool both for marking out the limits of faithful Christian belief and practice and for bridging the theological borders that separate us. But, we must think before we sing!

Select Bibliography

The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Frank Baker, editor in chief (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1984).

Vol. 7: A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists. Franz Hildebrandt & Oliver Beckerlegge, eds. 1983.

Vol. 9: The Methodist Societies I: History, Nature and Design. Rupert E. Davies, ed. 1989.

Vol. 12: Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises I. Randy L. Maddox, ed. 2012.

The Journal of John Wesley: Standard Edition. Vol. 1. Ed. Nehemiah Curnock. (London: The Epworth Press, 1938)

Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983).

Baker, Frank. Representative Verse of Charles Wesley. (Nashville.: Abingdon Press, 1962). Berger, Theresa. Theology in Hymns?: A Study of the Relationship of Doxology and Theology

According to A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists (1780). Translated by Timothy E. Kimbrough. (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1995).

Bett, Henry. Hymns of Methodism in Their Literary Relations. (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1913).

               . The Hymns of Methodism. 3rd ed. (London: Epworth Press, 1945). Champness, Mary. Half-Hours with the Methodist Hymn Book. (London: Charles H. Kelly,

1905).

Gallaway, Craig. ‘The Presence of Christ with the Worshipping Community: A Study in the Hymns of John and Charles Wesley.’ PhD Thesis, (Emory University, 1988).

Herbert, Thomas Walter. John Wesley as Editor and Author. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940).

Hopper, Isaac. ‘“Christ Alone for Salvation”: The Role of Christ and His Work in John Wesley’s Theology.’ PhD Thesis, (The University of Manchester, 2017).

Lawson, John. The Wesley Hymns: As a Guide to Scriptural Teaching. (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1987).

Quantrille, Wilma Jean. ‘The Triune God in the Hymns of Charles Wesley.’ PhD Thesis, (Drew University, 1989).

Telford, John, ed. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley. 14 vols. (London: The Epworth Press, 1960).

---

[1] John Wesley, ‘Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained’ (BE), 9:226-7.

[2] Randy Maddox, ‘Introduction to Wesley’s Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises’ (BE), 12:1-4.

[3] Oliver A. Beckerlegge, ‘Introduction’, Collection (BE), 7:4.

[4] Frank Baker, Representative Verse of Charles Wesley. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), x-xi.

[5] Beckerlegge, ‘Introduction’, Collection (BE), 7:22-3.

[6] Beckerlegge, ‘Introduction’, Collection (BE), 7:23. See also Mary Champness, Half-Hours with the Methodist Hymn Book. (London: Charles H. Kelly, unknown date), 78-95 for a discussion concerning John Wesley’s contributions to hymnody by way of his translations and Henry Bett, Hymns of Methodism in their Literary Relations. (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1913), 6-14.

[7] See Beckerlegge, ‘Introduction’, Collection (BE), 7:61ff. for a thorough background on the origin and use of hymn-books in early Methodism.

[8] For a more thorough evaluation of the 1780 Collection as a doctrinal standard for early Methodism, please see Hopper, Isaac N. ‘Christ Alone for Salvation’: The Role of Christ and His Work in John Wesley’s Theology. Ph.D. Thesis (The University of Manchester 2017), 233-52.

[9] Wesley, ‘The Preface’, Collection (BE), 7:73-4.

[10] Thomas Walter Herbert, John Wesley as editor and author (Princeton London: Princeton University Press H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1940), 1.

[11] Telford, 2:152.

[12] Herbert, John Wesley as editor and author, 26-7.

[13] Herbert, John Wesley as editor and author, 27.

[14] Herbert, John Wesley as editor and author, 61.

[15] Telford, 6:283.

[16] Beckerlegge, ‘Introduction’, Collection (BE), 7:55-6.

[17] See Teresa Berger, Theology in Hymns?: A Study of the Relationship of Doxology and Theology According to A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists (1780). Trans. Timothy E. Kimbrough (Nashville: Kingswood Books,

1995).

[18] Berger, Theology in Hymns, 20.

[19] Stuart Townend, Copyright © 1995 Thankyou Music.

[20] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, Matthew 27:46.

[21] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes, Mark 15:34.

[22] John Wesley, Collection (BE), 7:269-70.