certain slant of light

I actually like the tune to "Blessed Be Your Name." I think the songwriter wrote it, so it seems to fit.

Actually, the first song has a foible in the bridge: "I'll never know how much it cost, to see my sin upon that cross." Are saying that Jesus just saw our sin while he was dying? Or are we seeing the sin and thus never knowing? Neither way makes good theological or grammatical sense.

Um...I always thought the bridge was a reference to 2 Cor. 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Sin is therefore a metonym for Christ. I also think that "see" is used not to mean some sort of visual action but metaphorically to represent completed action, as in "to see something through." So the bridge always meant to me something like "I'll never know how much it cost for Christ to follow through his Father's will even to death on a cross in substitution for my own sinful being..." Which of course doesn't flow half as nicely as what's written. So I am glad it is abridged.

To cram an entire systematic theology into every verse seems a bit much to me. Not even the Psalms contain every aspect of God's worthfulness. I think it is okay to sing about one thing at a time, so long as that one thing is true.

But maybe I think a preposterous amount too much about song lyrics...

but funke, I think you are being too generous with these lyrics. When I was little I was always giving hymn lyrics different meanings because sometimes they just don't make sense the way they are, and now when I really think about the words I realize the authors didn't mean them as all as I interpreted them.

...ah, true, I am probably just claiming to know more than the song authors themselves do, which is highly arrogant of me, and quite possibly rather post-modern...

Funke, what you say is exactly what the writers are trying to convey. The problem is they just don't convey it effectively enough because of the faulty grammar. I'm not really sure how to rephrase it to make it better, but I don't think there's any getting around the bad grammar of the line. The question is: who is the subject of the line, and who is it costing?

"I'll never know how much it cost to see my sin upon that cross." does not contain bad grammar. It's a style issue. I can say "I don't know how much it cost to buy a ticket to China in 1959." which is basically the same construction. The problem is, "upon that cross" is ambiguous, is it a locative clause showing where the sin is being seen by an outside observer (as in "to see my pajamas on the bed"), or is the observer of the sin actually upon the cross ("we couldn't see anything in the woods once it got dark"). Really, the verb "see" just has problems, they should change it to "bear." See, then, ambiguity gone. Okay, I'm just putting off writing my paper now.

Linnea, I think it still is a grammatical issue, because the relationship between subject and object is not clear. It's a basic thing. I mean, who is doing the seeing? OK, the solution must be a grammatical one regardless of the last clause. You run into problems before you even get to it. I agree they should change it to something like bear.

Funke, I highly doubt the songwriters were thinking of that verse, unless they were wanting to be rather cryptic and hoping the general singer-ship would understand. I also think that saying it means "seeing something through" is a major stretch of the imagination. I think it is two separate clauses, which the writers hoped would convey a sinner watching his sin nailed to the cross and not really knowing how much it cost Jesus to do that. (Or does it mean that Jesus is seeing? I still don't know!) But the clauses are not properly put together in the sentence. Therein lies my problem and confusion with the bridge.

It's encouraging to hear all this discussion of modern church music by all of you. In our circles it seems it's the "contemporary young" vs the "traditional old". I'm the latter... I'm glad you're thinking about the theology and the grammar. It encourages me that church music won't totally go down the tubes when my generation expires! I think Linnea's idea of "bear" certainly does clarify the sentence meaning.

yeah, okay, I see what you mean about the grammer. It needs a "for so-and-so" phrase after the verb 'cost.' Only it shouldn't actually say "so-and-so" because that would heighten the ambiguity.

Actually, sperlonga, I think many young people, like me and my friends represented here, appreciate the old songs, especially for their lyrics. The popularity of the Indelible Grace albums, though I dislike some of the moods conveyed by the new melodies, is a sign of this sentiment.

And to throw my two cents into the discussion, I agree that "I'll never know how much it cost to see my sin upon that cross" is bad grammar. Even if "see" was replaced with "bear" it would be unclear. I think what the songwriter intended was something like, "I'll never know how much it cost (Christ) (for me to be able) to see my sin upon that cross," but that wouldn't scan, so the middle part simply got left out. Something like "I'll never know how much it cost: You bore my sin upon that cross" could be substituted and still fit the meter, though.