Yesterday, we sang the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as the recessional hymn. Only in “Gather,” it’s listed as “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory.” Wouldn’t want to use the common title! So bellicose!
I could live with the name change, but I can’t take the politically correct bowdlerization of the hymn’s words themselves.
Verse 3: “He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgement seat”
becomes
“He is sifting out all human hearts….”
Verse 4: “As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free”
becomes
“As he died to make all holy, let us die that all be free.”
Which, I suppose, is a little better than “let us live to make all free,” which is another variation I’ve seen. Who dares to do such things? Probably the same people who lecture us about the integrity of “art” and the “artist.” Unless the artist is dead, and the art in question’s copyright has expired.
Somebody made these changes so that “men” is not used as a generic plural noun for male and female human beings. The rationale is that women are oppressed when such a thing gets printed in a hymnal.
The reason this is stupid — and I apologize if you think “stupid” is name-calling, but the adjective is perfect — the words of the hymn were written by Julia Ward Howe. As the name implies, she was a woman!
To all those who want to impose their feminist ideas on the rest of us by changing the words to one of the most well-known and beloved hymns in American history, I have four words of advice: Write your own damn hymn.
Amen.
8 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
wow… your comments are so… bellicose…
They may have changed the song’s title as a bit of dumbing-down: a lot of people probably don’t know that this song is called “Battle Hymn of the Republic”.
I was never all that fond of it anyway.
Feminist revisionism can be carried to such silly extremes, as it is here, maybe bellicose is the only honest response. Great post, Eric!
Shouldn’t it be called a hermn? Sung from a hermnal?
“Died to make all holy” is also theologically incorrect.
Making all holy would be a complete reconciliation of all souls to God, despite the clear willful rejection of Christ’s saving work by unregenerate sinners hell-bent on refusing to repent and submit to Christ.
Yes, Christ died for the sins of the world, however the salvation in question is for that whom would accept the saving grace of Christ, not for “all” regardless of acceptance or rejection of the love of Christ shed forth in his death on the cross.
I don’t think the wording is so bad — it was certainly Christ’s intention to save everyone. That some have rejected the salvation he offered is probable, but he does invite everyone to the banquet.
“Christ died for the sins of the world, however the salvation in question is for that whom would accept the saving grace of Christ, not for “all” regardless of acceptance or rejection of the love of Christ shed forth in his death on the cross.”
But, that doesn’t rhyme with “sea”.
Hermn.