Depending on your circles, you may or may not have any context for this discussion. I'm talking about those beautiful carols which have minor inaccuracies or embellishments compared to the biblical, historical narrative of Christ's birth.
For example, there are references to angels singing in several carols, "Angels from the Realms of Glory", "Angels We Have Heard on High", "Hark the Herald Angel Sing", etc. Scripture only ever references angels "saying" or "proclaiming" truth, never singing.
Other examples include the many references to winter and snow ("In the Bleak Midwinter" and "The First Noel") when we aren't sure of the season of his birth and some argue it was in the spring. Even if it was in the middle of the winter, would there have been snow and ice in Israel? Probably not.
There is also the classic example of "Away in a Manger" saying Jesus didn't cry, which makes all the mothers laugh.
And then, there are songs which seem to have almost no connection with the biblical narrative, such as "I Saw Three Ships" and the "Holly and the Ivy".
Really, most carols are going to have at least something in them that is probably not going to agree with the most current scholarship on the biblical narrative, cultural background, or archeological record. You could say these references are "extrabiblical", meaning they ellaborate on things not clearly specified in Scripture, versus "contrabiblical", against the teaching of the Bible.
Don't let the carols form your only understanding of Scripture. If you are more familiar with the carols than the actual text, I would encourage you to research and understand the text better. However, there is still much to appreciate about these carols and (I would say) a good reason to sing them.
The authors of most of these old carols had a much more limited cultural, historical understanding of the land of the Bible. Hopefully, they knew the Scriptures, but they didn't have nearly the understanding of context that we do now with access to commentaries, broader knowledge of historical practices through archeological records, and the ability to widely and deeply research any topic. I am not saying they were less intelligent because they lived long ago, but we should not forget the amazing wealth of information we have at our fingertips which faithful Medieval, Renaissance, and even Victorian Christians wouldn't have had access to.
I believe most of these authors, poets, and song writers were seeking to tell the story in a way that would connect with their audience to convey the profound truths of Christmas and Christianity. I trust they also did so with the best understanding they had of Scripture (though it was more limited than current scholarship).
They also related the story of the Bible to their own cultural context (whether intentionally or by assumption). If they understood Christ's birth to be in December and they lived in a cold, northern climate, it would completely make sense for them to imagine the setting being snowy and cold. It would even add appropriate poetic symbolism. The contast of Jesus coming from heaven to a cold reception on earth when he should have been greeted as king, would touch the audience. Relating Christ to the holly plant (native to England but not to Isreal) would be natural and appropriate to speak to the English audience. Even if the song writer was familiar with the flora and fauna of ancient Isreal, would that connect to their audience?
It is a good thing to use words (in story, poetry, or song) to help bring flesh to a concept. It helps the concept sink in on a different level than hearing it straight. It is appropriate to contextualize stories if the audience has little chance of understanding the original context. And so, I think we can still appreciate these songs (or traditions or stories) if they are theologically accurate. By theologically accuracy, I refer to the revealed truths about God being expressed accurately, even if the supporting background details may be inaccurate.
Our generations should be doing the same thing. If we do not have authors, poets, musicians, and screenwriters trying to put flesh on truth, it will be hard for the audience to receive. Afterall, God himself was perfectly complete, but put on flesh to communicate to his audience. He literally "fleshed out" the teachings of the law and the prophets.
With that, there is a caution. When you flesh something out or embellish it (I mean embellish in a beautifying way, not in the sense of exaggeration), there is the risk that you'll communicate something you didn't intend or that is inaccurate. If you are an author, be careful how you present your work. You cannot control every interepretation of your audience, but aim for truth as clearly as possible. If you are the audience, be discerning. Appreciate good art, but be able to separate art from truth.
For myself, I fully enjoy the traditional Christmas carols, even when there are minor inaccuracies. I had already drafted this article when I heard Keith Getty speak in an interview with the Trinity Forum and someone asked him a similar question. If you are interested in the topic, you might want to hear his thoughts as well.
Photo by David Beale on Unsplash
No comments:
Post a Comment