How Christmas, and Other, Songs Affect Doctrine

I saw a video was posted on this on YouTube recently. 'O Come All Ye Faithful', 'Hark the Herald Angels Sing', 'Angels We Have Heard on High' all refer to angels singing. But if we look at Luke 2, the angels spoke. It does not say they sing. How many of you think of angels singing in the story?

Another Christmas song says 'and take us to heaven to be with You there.' Modern Christians tend to think of our final state as 'dying and going to heaven', when the Bible does not explicitly teach we die and go to heaven, and this is one possible interpretation that is inferred from certain passages.

Gospel songs like, "I'll Fly Away" focus the singer's attention on bliss at death, rather than on the Biblical focus of the hope of the resurrection.

What other songs shape the way Christians think, but not necessarily in line with what the Bible teaches.

"But little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes"... yeah right. He was human. Human infants cry to express themselves.

"Dear desire of every nation"... how I wish. I don't see Moslem Iran, animist Khanate Mongolia, or Communist Russian desiring Him.

"In fields where they lay keeping their sheep, on a cold winter's night that was so deep"... um, no. Shepherds may be uneducated by today's standards, but they weren't stupid.

That all said, the theology of many of the traditional carols is pretty solid, so I can tolerate some poetic license. Most were penned by Europeans or Brits, who had much biblical familiarity but little knowledge of Middle Eastern geography or climate. I would rather have the songs and selectively edit or explain them, than not have them at all.

I have come across a few doozies in modern popular Christian music; my favourite example of unbiblical lyrics by a well-meaning writer is, "Let the rock that was rolled away be my cornerstone", performed by Clay Crosse (I don't know whether he wrote it). That one is definitely not in my playlist.

One of the verses of 'O Holy Night' is abolitionist propaganda that doesn't really fit with the modern world today. That song isn't all that old though, maybe a little over 100 years. At least there is no drummer boy in that one. 'We three kings' does not have much to do with the Bible, since wise men/magos came to see Jesus. And it does not say that there were 'three wise men' either. Three types of gifts are listed.

This one isn't a Christmas song:
I've hard
Lift Jesus higher
Lift Jesus higher
Lift Him up for the world to see
He said, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto Me."

Considering the quote is about the crucifixion, the first part of the song doesn't seem appropriate.

There is a modern Christmas song, maybe two, that says that Jesus was 'born in a manger'. Most of us are removed a generation or two or three or four from being farmers like our ancestors, so many people do not know what a manger is. It would have been rather cruel, IMO, to make Mary lay or sit in a feed trough to give birth. The Bible says she laid him in a manger, not that she gave birth in it.

Some of the older songs are pretty good theologically because they stood the test of time. I like the sound of Christmas songs, the nostalgia, and the theology of a lot of them, so I like them, but there is a lot of 'poetic license.' My theory is the idea of singing angels in Luke 2 probably came in through 'O Come All Ye Faithful', which dates back, in some form, to the 4th century, and influenced other songs like 'Angels Ye Have Heard on high', "Hark the Herald Angels Sing', 'What Child is This', etc.

Job 38:7 says that, at the creation of the world, “the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy.”

“Morning stars” are equated with angels

The Bible does indeed teach -- EXPLICITLY -- that when Christians die they go to
Heaven.

As to the angels singing, it says that they were "praising God", and as we know from the Psalms (which are all praising God) that the Psalms are indeed songs of praise. So what you are trying to do here is SUBVERT Christian truth.

Instead of yelling, and accusing Presidente of "trying to subvert Christian truth", how about you simply show the verses where Scripture "explicitly" teaches that Christians go to heaven when they die. Without the Scripture (and a gentle spirit), you're merely a clanging cymbal who will eventually be tuned out.

By the way, it is possible to be simply mistaken about something Scripture says, and not be "trying to subvert" anything. Maybe next time, assume the best of your fellow CC'ers before you bash them... unless, of course, that's how you prefer to be treated.

I've never met a single Christian or (non-Christian) that believed Mary gave birth in a manger, in 30 years. Nor have I met anyone that didn't have at least a general idea of what a manger is. Nativity scenes are everywhere.

Those darn 'modern' Christians that 'focus' on death (because of one song).
Phillipians 1:21
For to me, living means living for Christ, and dying is even better.

And this horrible doctrine that angels sing. Pretty serious flaw, spiritually, thinking that angels sing. Super relevant.

Revelations 5

8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas 🙄

That would be a rather dangerous gift. They kill more people than lions, they say.

I'm not saying angels don't sing. I meant to include a line that angels singing isn't some great heresy, but there is no record of them singing in the Christmas story in the Bible. My point is how many other doctrines basically get instilled through song rather than scripture, and my purpose was to point out if part of what people think of as 'canon' about the Christmas story comes from songs rather than scripture, couldn't this be the case with other teachings?

How many Christians have you interrogated to determine if they knew the difference between the manger and the stable in the nativity scene?

This is a different song from the one I heard at a couple of Christmas programs a few years ago, but it is entitled 'Born in a Manger'.

Neither was this one, but the author apparently thought Jesus was 'Born in a Manger.'

This should be quite simple. Show me where the Bible is quite explicit about Christians dying and going to heaven at death. Paul wrote of being willing to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Christians infer this means going to heaven. It is not explicit. Show me where it is explicit in scripture.

I can make an equally 'logical' argument. Bread is food. Broccoli is food. Therefore bread is broccoli.

Luke 2 says the angels said. It does not say they sang. Angels sing in other passages. I did not say that no angels have ever sung God's praises. It just isn't in the Luke 2 passage, even though songs describing the events in that passages say the angels sung.

Instead of accusing me, you would be more persuasive if you could show where the Bible supports your position.

Yeah I've got nothing better to do than preach against undoctrinal Christmas songs.....sign me up😕😕😕

Or comment on posts about it.

Oh joy a variant on the Christmas tree thread.

Is it necessary for Christmas carols to be strictly biblical in their content? Christmas carols are not divinely inspired although they may come from hearts that love the Lord. I doubt that there was a little drummer boy at the nativity but it is a pleasant song and clean from perversion.

Did not Paul say to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord? Seems explicit about going to heaven unless you believe that Jesus is not in heaven.

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Romans 1 does tell us that God reveals Himself in the things of the world to those who are not going to church. So why not in Christmas music even if it is not strictly biblical on it's technical merits. Romans 1:19-20

Sorry to be critical of the critics but it's Christmas and I'm in a mood to allow all to speak of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Some churches sing Christmas carols in church.

Some, many churches perform modern contemporary music in their services. I do not think that Grandma got run over by a Reindeer is appropriate but it is probably no worse than much of the rock and roll music played with so called Christian lyrics.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I understand all the festivities being called Pagan.
However, the word metaphor can so easily be applied and how you see things change.

If all you see is a big fat guy in a red suit that they call Santa, you are looking at it in 1 way.

If you imagine Santa from the north, being a metaphor for Our Father, above, you can see it another way. (Not saying Santa is God)
I believe that Christmas as we celebrate it is for children. Seeing those smiles and being a part of it, allows us adults to remember that we were once that happy too. It also allows us remember our own inner child and never forget that we always have a Father who can put that same huge smile on our sometimes, ignorant adult faces.

I've never heard that song in church, but I have heard the old ones I mentioned in the OP. I have heard one of the 'born in a manger' songs in a church play, but not the ones I was able to find and link to above.

I like your post. In general, I agree with it. We should prefer to endeavor to good communication, understanding, and education over assumption, insinuation, and accusation. However, using a bold font does not automatically make anything "yelling" - bold fonts are most-often used for 'emphasis'. So are italics fonts. What is used depends on what kind of emphasis is needed or desired. Even ALL-CAPS, at times, can be used for special emphasis without having any kind of 'yelling' intent attached to it.

Assuming that a bold font automatically means "yelling" is a bad assumption to make. The same is true for ALL-CAPS.

I use italics, bold, underline, color, etc. in various ways in my posts. It is EXTREMELY rare that I am 'angry' or "yelling" in the slightest.

I am not "yelling" in this post. I am illustrating a point. I do that a lot. I use whatever is available to me to try to "put ideas across" in [hopefully] the best-understandable way. This sometimes includes emojis as well.

There are only so many "things" available to use. And, they are used in different combinations. So - to assume that any particular "thing" used automatically has some particular meaning attached is a bit like assuming that a particular word in the Bible ALWAYS has some particular meaning attached without considering the context.

In the Bible, the overall context must be considered if you want to arrive at the proper interpretation.

In any post, the overall context must be considered if you want to arrive at the proper interpretation.