Wonder at beauty . . .

My brother's co-worker Cecilia recently (two weeks ago) received the truly awesome gift of a new pancreas and kidney. Her recovery has been astonishingly smooth--far beyond expectation. And she is, as she says, "flying high" for the last few days . . . which led her to send a letter of thanks (to those who prayed for her) and praise (to God).

"Please, accept this video song as a little something from me to you," she wrote. "Take a moment to listen and perhaps you’ll get a glimpse of what all I experienced." And she included a link to the following video as presented on Andie's Isle. (Andie's version includes Brian Doerksen's lyrics shown line by line at the bottom of the video frame.)




Watching the video got me thinking:

• "This is really beautiful."
   
• "I am moved. Awestruck."
   
• "Is the theology presented here at all distinguishable from that of, say, Henry van Dyke who wrote "Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee"?
  

  [Background to my question:
  
  Van Dyke's lyrics:
  

  Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee,
  God of glory, Lord of love;
  Hearts unfold like flow’rs before Thee,
  Op’ning to the sun above.
  Melt the clouds of sin and sadness;
  Drive the dark of doubt away;
  Giver of immortal gladness,
  Fill us with the light of day!
  
  All Thy works with joy surround Thee,
  Earth and heav’n reflect Thy rays,
  Stars and angels sing around Thee,
  Center of unbroken praise.
  Field and forest, vale and mountain,
  Flow’ry meadow, flashing sea,
  Singing bird and flowing fountain
  Call us to rejoice in Thee.
  
  Thou art giving and forgiving,
  Ever blessing, ever blest,
  Wellspring of the joy of living,
  Ocean depth of happy rest!
  Thou our Father, Christ our Brother,
  All who live in love are Thine;
  Teach us how to love each other,
  Lift us to the joy divine.
  
  Mortals, join the happy chorus,
  Which the morning stars began;
  Father love is reigning o’er us,
  Brother love binds man to man.
  Ever singing, march we onward,
  Victors in the midst of strife,
  Joyful music leads us Sunward
  In the triumph song of life.

  Van Dyke wrote the song as he did with a specific purpose: to lull the evangelicals and fundamentalists of his day with a feel-good sound while promoting a liberal/modernist theology. Or, as he expressed it, “These verses are simple expressions of common Christian feelings and desires in this present time--hymns of today that may be sung together by people who know the thought of the age, and are not afraid that any truth of science will destroy religion, or any revolution on earth overthrow the kingdom of heaven. Therefore this is a hymn of trust and joy and hope.”
  
  Yep. A gospel that doesn't require a self-sacrificing Savior, nor, really, any faith in or obedience to Him. (After all, "All who live in love" belong to God! It is love, brother love, that binds "man to man" and, apparently, all human beings to God. It is love--not faith, not obedience--that makes Christ our brother.)
  
  As someone else has noted,
  

  HVD was indeed a theological liberal. As such, the lyrics of his famous hymn mean nothing like what [so many evangelicals and fundamentalists] think they mean. The terminology may seem the same, but the actual content and meaning is miles away from what we might think the words mean. Someone noted the word "sunward" [“[The last stanza, 'Joyful music leads us Sunward/In the triumph song of life'] could say Sonward instead of Sunward. But that’s nitpicking.”]. That's not nitpicking; it's an important observation that reveals Van Dyke's liberal philosophy that the world is evolving, progressing toward "the sun," or the limitless horizon.
  
  The focus of the hymn is optimism in the human condition, and the social gospel.
  
  All men are brothers of Christ and sons of God. "Sin" is just like a cloud...not really something to be concerned about--just something that casts a shadow, like sadness. Both sin and sadness, as well as doubt, can be "melted away" by God's smile. All men--together--are progressing, led by music, toward triumph...the triumph of arrival in heaven? No, the triumph of life on earth.

  Please understand: I am not, in any way, wanting to suggest that Brian Doerksen is a theological liberal or that he wrote his song as he did with the purpose of achieving the kinds of things that van Dyke was seeking with his song. At the same time--forbidden question?--I did and do wonder: How is the theology of Doerksen's song distinguishable from that of van Dyke's?]

  My answer to my question: I don't think it is distinguishable. At least not in this song.
   
• The song ends with numerous repetitions of the phrase, "I believe." ("I believe. I believe. I believe. I believe. . ." Etc.) --What does that mean? What am I saying "I believe"? What am I affirming when I say (or, in this case, sing) "I believe"?
  
  My answer to my question: Ummmm . . . I'm really not sure what Doerksen may have meant to say by his lyrics. I expect he meant to say something about God being the Creator. But what does that mean? That God created in six, literal, 24-hour days? Perhaps. But quite possibly, no.
  
  I can imagine that non-evolutionary, young-earth creationists would view this as an anti-evolutionary/pro-intelligent design song. But that's not necessary. I can imagine that some old-earth and/or evolutionary creationists would feel a bit uncomfortable singing such a song while standing in the midst of a congregation full of young-earth creationists who were obviously singing the song with the understanding that it implies an anti-evolutionary/pro-intelligent design message.
  
  On the other hand, I can imagine that most young-earth creationists would feel extremely uncomfortable singing this song if they thought--as I do--that it is no more young-earth/literal six-24-hour-day creationist than it is old-earth and/or, potentially, theistic evolutionist in perspective. And I can imagine that they would be even more uncomfortable if they thought (as I do not--because I have absolutely no idea what Doerksen may believe about these matters) that Doerksen may have actually written the song for a similar strategic purpose as van Dyke wrote his song [i.e., for the purpose of deliberate equivocation, to lull or hoodwink them into singing something they believe uniquely affirms their convictions while, in fact, those who disagree with them on the very thing(s) they believe they are affirming can sing the same song with equal fervor].
   
• If I sing this as a six, literal, 24-hour day creationist, am I affirming something different from someone who sings it as an evolutionary creationist?
  
  My answer to my question: Yes. Absolutely. I, as a young-earther, will visualize in my mind some very different mechanisms by which all these wonders appear before me today than will my old-earth brethren. And, of course, the same could be said from the other side: Yes. Absolutely. I, as an old-earther, will visualize in my mind some very different mechanisms by which all these wonders appear before me today than will my young-earth brethren. We can sing or say the exact same words, but intend--or "mean"--very different things.
   
• Can an evolutionary creationist feel the same feelings of awestruck wonder about the images in a video like this as does a six, literal, 24-hour day creationist?
  
  My answer to my question: I think so. I expect so.
   
• Can an atheistic (i.e., non-creationist) evolutionist feel the same feelings of awestruck wonder about the images in a video like this as does a six, literal, 24-hour day creationist?
  
  My answer to my question: I expect he or she may experience many of the same feelings, but the words of Doerksen's song that go along with the images? Obviously, from an atheist's perspective: ridiculous. Certainly the line, "How could I say there is no God/When all around creation calls?" --That is a theistic line. It is not atheistic. Similarly, "I have seen Your tears fall/When I watch the rain."
  
  On the other hand, this is no more a Christian song than it is pantheistic. Of course, if all that is is God, then, of course, there is no--there can be no--real, ex nihilo creation. But if I were a pantheist in a largely Christian culture, I could imagine I would justify the use of the word creation to refer to "all that is/the physical realm/the universe." I would, of course, be implying by my words what I could not possibly really mean.
  
  Or not?
  
  I am reminded of my former boss at the Michigan State University Office of Programs for Handicappers back in the mid-1970s. He objected to the use of the word sidewalk, for example, because it implied that it was solely for the use of people who can actually walk. "What about those of us who use wheelchairs?" he asked. (He was paraplegic, paralyzed from the chest down.)
  
  "The use of words like sidewalk and boardwalk (for example) is discriminatory!" he said. "Far better to use a word like path--sidepath, boardpath, if necessary."
  
  Right? Or wrong?