![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
#779: Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound
Feb. 4th, 2021 10:56 pmThis is definitely a case of classics for a reason. You probably know it. You might prefer some performance styles to others, there are many. One of my bell-ringing comrades remarked after the recent Biden inauguration, when it was performed, that she just isn't a fan. I don't think she finds it objectionable for any particular reason, just not her style. And I was quiet and polite about it, but I was thinking, "that sure is a take."
The last verse is not by the original composer, but an anonymous addition: "When we've been [in heaven] then thousand years...we've no less days to sing God's praise than when we'd first begun." As a logician, I approve of this cardinal arithmetic. Infinity minus a finite quantity is still infinity! This is a big and important deal! Faith in the eternal part of eternity is a cause for hope and joy and not something to be ashamed of!
There are, however, a couple other culture-war aspects to the text. I feel like I've seen somewhere (maybe this was satire?) that we should be hesitant about using it because the line "[I] was blind, but now I see" could be perceived as ableist. I feel like this ignores the established and multifaceted use of metaphorical language (does the idea "I once was lost, but now am found" connote judgment of people who need directions?) as well as the Gospel narratives of Jesus literally healing sick people, including blind people.
Also, the famous backstory is that the lyricist was a slave trader who had a dramatic change of heart mid-journey, and wrote this text about his own miraculous conversion narrative. And I feel like there are a lot of people who would be like "he does not deserve any credit for ceasing to do evil, he is fundamentally an irredeemable person and no amount of divine love is gonna change that." Which, if that's your theology, fine, but at that point why do you care about how people who do believe in the infinite power of divine love sing about that belief.
The last verse is not by the original composer, but an anonymous addition: "When we've been [in heaven] then thousand years...we've no less days to sing God's praise than when we'd first begun." As a logician, I approve of this cardinal arithmetic. Infinity minus a finite quantity is still infinity! This is a big and important deal! Faith in the eternal part of eternity is a cause for hope and joy and not something to be ashamed of!
There are, however, a couple other culture-war aspects to the text. I feel like I've seen somewhere (maybe this was satire?) that we should be hesitant about using it because the line "[I] was blind, but now I see" could be perceived as ableist. I feel like this ignores the established and multifaceted use of metaphorical language (does the idea "I once was lost, but now am found" connote judgment of people who need directions?) as well as the Gospel narratives of Jesus literally healing sick people, including blind people.
Also, the famous backstory is that the lyricist was a slave trader who had a dramatic change of heart mid-journey, and wrote this text about his own miraculous conversion narrative. And I feel like there are a lot of people who would be like "he does not deserve any credit for ceasing to do evil, he is fundamentally an irredeemable person and no amount of divine love is gonna change that." Which, if that's your theology, fine, but at that point why do you care about how people who do believe in the infinite power of divine love sing about that belief.
