History of “O Holy Night” Christmas Hymn

 

We attended a concert at Grace Presbyterian church in Peoria this weekend and they shared some of the amazing history of the song “O Holy Night” to us. It was an interesting story so I thought I would go for the entire background of this beautiful song.

Written by Two Non-Christians

In the year 1847, a man named Placide Cappeau de Roquemaure was the commisioner/inspector of wines in a small town in France.  Known to be an avid poet, Placide was approached by a priest to compose a poem for a Christmas service in Paris.

Poet Pens It

Initially, Cappeau was not certain he’d be able to live up to the task.  After reading the Gospel of Luke for inspiration, he envisioned what it might have been like to have been in Bethlehem to witness the birth of Jesus.  From there, he penned the now famous words to “Cantique de Noel”, or O Holy Night.  

Composer Scores It

Upon delivering the poem in Paris, Cappeau determined that “Cantique de Noel” would be even more powerful if set to music.  For help, he turned to well known composer Adolphe Charles Adams.  At first, Adams was reluctant to participate.  As a Jew, the celebration of the Christian savior did not appeal to him.  Still, something about the words of the poem inspired him, and thus he endeavored to compose an original score unlike anything that had been heard before.  It only took Adams three weeks to complete the work, and it was immediately performed at a Christmas Eve mass.

Church Stifles the Song

Churches across France embraced this amazing new hymn and it became a popular staple for choirs to sing at Christmas time.  However, Cappeau eventually left the Catholic church.  This information, combined with news that the music was written by a Jewish man, caused the Catholic hierarchy of France to ban the singing of “Cantique de Noel”, claiming it was too secular.  It baffles the mind how the worshipful lyrics to this song could ever be considered secular, but the church had spoken, and the song was no longer part of traditional services.

Brought to America

This did not silence the song forever.  Common folk continued to embrace it, and refused to let the church bury it.  They continued to sing “Cantique de Noel” in their homes and in social gatherings.  O Holy Night had gone from a mainstream hymn to an underground hit.  About ten years after the official attempt to bury the song by the Church in France, “Cantique de Noel” found its way to the ears of an obscure American writer, named John Sullivan Dwight.

 

Renames It

Dwight instantly felt moved by the lyrics and the grand, soaring score.  He determined that American audiences had to hear it.  Dwight felt that the song was the perfect marriage between the Good News of the Gospel, and the freedom that Jesus represented.  An ardent abolitionist, Dwight was overcome with the power of a particular verse:

“Truly he taught us to love one another;
his law is love and his gospel is peace.
Chains shall he break,
for the slave is our brother;
and in his name all oppression shall cease.”

Dwight translated the lyrics of “Cantique de Noel” into English, renaming it O Holy Night, and published it in a magazine.  The song found an audience in the American north, where it was celebrated as an anthem of freedom.

Song Leads to Wartime Cease Fire

Meanwhile, the song continued to be celebrated by the common man in France and various parts of Europe.  It is said that during the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, a French soldier jumped out of his trench in the middle of a fire fight, and sang three verses of “Cantique de Noel” while his fellow soldiers stared in amazement.  Upon completion of the song, a German soldier boldly emerged from hiding, approached the Frenchman and said, “Vom Himmel hoch, da komm’ ich her. Ich bring’ euch gute neue Mar, Der guten Mar bring’ ich so viel, Davon ich sing’n und sagen will,” which means “From Heaven above to Earth I come, to bring good news to everyone. Glad tidings of great joy I bring, of which I must both say and sing.”  The words are lifted from the old hymn “From Heaven Above to Earth I Come,” which was penned by Martin Luther.  The legend states that for the next 24 hours, in honor of Christmas day, both sides ceased fighting.

First Song to be Played on Radio

 

In 1906, the only type of radios that existed were wireless transmitters that picked up code. On Christmas Eve of that year, a 33-year-old university professor named Reginald Fessenden was tinkering in his office and proceeded to do something that had never been done before.  He broadcast a human voice across the airwaves.  Speaking into a microphone he’d rigged, Fessenden read Luke Chapter 2 from his Bible.  As he uttered the words, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed…” amazed radio operators on ships and over wireless code transmitters heard the Gospel being read through their speakers.  Those who heard those first words over the radio recall that they thought they were witnessing a miracle.

Meanwhile, Fessenden had no idea who, if anyone, was hearing his broadcast.  After completing his reading from the Gospel of Luke, he picked up his violin, sat close to his microphone, and played the familiar music to O Holy Night – making it the first song to ever be played over the airwaves.

Since 1847, when a poet in France penned his poem inspired by Luke’s Gospel, O Holy Night is a song that has managed to unite common people across France, inspire Americans as it highlighted the sin of slavery, unite soldiers on the battlefield, and break ground as the first song ever to be broadcast through a medium that would eventually spread the Gospel all over the world.

 

Do We Fail in Discernment?

 

 

 

Discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically.

This lesson is taught to us in 1st Thessaionians 5:21-22 when it says, “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”

According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required.

 

The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living.

You know what? It is discernment that many people, Charistians and non-Christians, fail. They stumble and show little ability to measure the things they are taught. In is the Christians that can’t discern the infallible standard of God’s Word, and they unwittingly engage in all kinds of un-biblical decision-making and behavior.

They are not armed to take a decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them throughout their day.

Discernment is in every facet of the Christian’s life.

Discernment — the ability to think biblically about all areas of life — is vital to an uncompromising life. It is important for the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

Wait, We are Suspending Coaches for Praying After Games?

 

Not only as a Christian, but as a general believer in something bigger than myself, reading and hearing about religious discrimination hits close to home. A few weeks ago, an assistant football coach was put on paid leave for praying during the games.

Coach Joe Kennedy was “booted from the locker room at Bremerton High School in Washington State,” according to Fox News’ article “High school boots praying football coach” by Todd Starnes. Kennedy was placed on administrative leave after refusing to stop his post-game prayers.

Kennedy is being represented by Liberty Institute, “the nation’s largest law firm dedicated to defending religious liberty,” according to the Fox News’ article. His attorney, Hiram Sasser, states the school district is “sending the message to all people of faith that they are not welcome.”

Sasser also said the school officials refused to meet with him and that he only spoke with their lawyer for half an hour, according to the article. It seems obvious the officials are avoiding Sasser and Coach Kennedy, which can lead to a questionable prosecution of how serious they are taking this matter.

I understand a lot of different people have different religious beliefs, which makes religious jurisdiction such a sensitive subject. After all, everyone has the right to believe what he or she wants.

However, Kennedy wasn’t leading a huge prayer organization during the football games. He was simply praying after them.

According to Seattle Times’ article “Bremerton coach’s prayers catch attention of Congress,” Kennedy prayed by himself at first, but a few other coaches, some players and even fans eventually joined him. He wasn’t telling people to pray with him and he wasn’t making others feel bad for not praying with him. All the praying was voluntary.

According to the Fox News article, “Liberty Institute has already laid the groundwork for a lawsuit against the school district – accusing them of religious discrimination.” Sasser said the school district is being “hostile towards Christianity.”

Leading schoolwide prayers have already been banned, including football games, and have been replaced with a moment for silence. Kennedy wasn’t performing this schoolwide prayer.

He was only praying amongst himself and any others who wanted to join. He wasn’t forcing his beliefs upon anyone.

When the U.S. was founded, it was considered taboo to not believe in anything. Times have changed, and it has become obvious the U.S. has people with a wide array of religious beliefs. Because of this, the most controversial debates in religion always seem to be about Christians “forcing their beliefs upon others.”

However, in this situation, this is not the case at all. According to Gallup’s poll in the article “In U.S., 77% Identify as Christians,” by Frank Newport, 77 percent of the adult population identified with a Christian religion in 2011.

It seems to me Christianity is being prosecuted for being the majority. I would never try to make anyone feel inferior or single them out for not believing what I do. However, the argument of “Stop forcing your religion on us,” is starting to sound a lot like “Stop believing in your religion because I don’t believe in that.”

An important part in the U.S. laws is to create an offense-free atmosphere, so everyone can get along as free citizens. The majority of people in the U.S. are Christians, therefore I can understand the feeling of being overpowered or forgotten, but that’s not how it is.

The U.S. is a safe and free place for all religions and beliefs, and it is a principle that must be protected, even in events as small as high school football games.

Known as the “Father of the American Revolution” and the “Firebrand of the Revolution,” Sam Adams was arguably the most effective verbal rabble-rouser in American history. He was a leader in the events leading up to the American Revolution and helped to found the Sons of Liberty.

He was also a steadfast Christian. In “The Rights of the Colonists,” which he wrote in 1772, he said:

“The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty…The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”

After signing the Declaration of Independence, he proclaimed:

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

In his February, 1795 Proclamation for a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, then Governor Adams said:

“That with true repentance and contrition of Heart, we may unitedly implore the forgiveness of our Sins, through the merits of Jesus Christ, and humbly supplicate our Heavenly Father, to grant us the aids of his Grace, for the amendment of our Hearts and Lives, and vouchsafe his smiles upon our temporal concerns.”

And finally, these are the words in his Last Will and Testament:

“Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins.”

This is a continuation of the article I wrote called,  “This Country was Established on a Christian Foundation” on November 15th.

On March 6, 1789, President Adams called for a national day of fasting and prayer for the country could “call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgression, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience. . .”

A few other quotes which demonstrate Adams’ thoughts about Jesus are below.

On April 18, 1775, a British soldier ordered him, John Hancock, and others to “disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England. Adams responded to him:

“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”

 

In an October 13, 1789 address to the military, he said:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, he said

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity”

As I get older and older I try harder not to fall into the trap of “because” and “that’s the way it’s always been done”. I didn’t like that when I was younger and don’t want that for myself at an advanced age. I know I will never be modern or hip but I at least can accept some of the social norms that are appropriate in society and doesn’t go against God and the law. One of the areas that I have come around on is dealing with women and their name change. You see, when a woman gets married to a man she drops her name and takes his because “that’s the way it’s always been done” in society. Well folks, THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

 

In 1972, women accounted for only about 38 percent of the labor force. Today, they make up closer to 47 percent. During the 1969-70 school year, only 92,481 master’s degrees were awarded to women, compared to 143,083 awarded to men. Those numbers have risen monumentally since, with the 2009-10 year seeing 417,828 master’s degrees awarded to women compared to 275,197 awarded to men. In 1970, only about 11 percent of Ph.Ds that year were awarded to women, compared to 2010, when the figure was closer to 50 percent.

Clearly, women are closing gaps in many fields. They are seen, and are seeing themselves, as equal to men in all fields. As the gaps close, women are getting more and more confident to try things that were seen previously as reserved only to men, and, even in some cases, doing better than men.

So, why is it still considered the norm for a woman to change her last name when she gets married to a man? The tradition came about with the archaic idea that women become the property of their husbands after marriage. That’s where the term “maiden name” comes from. A maiden, meaning a virgin, retained her birth name until her virginity was essentially sold to her husband, when she then became his “property” and thus adopted his last name.

Marriages were a way of securing yourself a comfortable future. The woman stayed home and bore children and were responsible for them. The man went out and worked to earn an income to support his family. These roles were a given and never really opposed. Marriage was just a glorified business transaction. Dowries, in which the woman’s family pay the man’s family to accept their daughter and support her, were part of this transaction in many cultures.

Dowries not the case anymore in America, though. Women are taught to be their own person from a young age. In many developed countries, women are encouraged to study higher education, develop their own talents and bloom into independent women. As of 2012, nearly 50% of married couples had dual incomes.

And, yet, it’s still the default to change your name after marriage if you are a woman.

A name is an identity. As one grows and matures, their name collects a personality and uniquely identifies them a person. What is it about a union between a man and a woman that makes women “property” in this day and age?

Let’s abandon this tradition. No one is anyone’s possession, and no one should be forced to change something so close to them. Don’t make women feel guilty for wanting to keep the name they were born with. They are still a whole person without their husband.

It should be a matter of choice for the woman and it not the business of others.

It comes up all the time. People claim that this country was not founded on Christianity. That is hogwash.

Pilgrims Came to Escape

The pilgrims, as you will recall, were, Christians fleeing Europe in order to escape religious persecution, and they literally began their stay in their new land with the words, “In the name of God, Amen.”

The pilgrims were followed to New England by the Puritans, who created bible-based commonwealths. Those commonwealths practiced the same sort of representative government as their church covenants. Those governmental covenants and compacts numbered more than 100, and were the foundation for our Constitution.

Puritans wanted Church Reform

New Haven (Connecticut) and Massachusetts were founded by Puritans who wanted to reform the Church of England, who later became known as Congregationalists. Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island based on the principle of freedom of conscience. Pennsylvania was established by William Penn as a Quaker colony. Maryland was a haven for Catholics from Protestant England.

Schools Started by Christians

All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

Government Purchases Bibles

In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

Final Thought

America was indeed founded by bible-believing Christians and based on Christian principles. When they founded this country, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity.

Don’t let anyone tell you differently!

 

NOTE: We will continue this in a series about some of the founding fathers and their words and viewpoints as they relate to Christianity.

Nov. 22nd – John Adams

Nov. 26th- Sam Adams

Dec. 3- Alexander Hamilton

Dec. 6- John Hancock

Dec. 7th- John Jay

Dec. 10th- Patrick Henry

Dec. 13th- Thomas Jefferson

Dec. 14th- James Madison

Dec. 17th- George Mason

Dec.  20th- George Washington

Dec. 21st- Noah Webster

Dec. 24th- John Marshall

I Blog, You Should Consider It, Here’s Your Invitation!

 

I have found that the rewards of blogging have been inspiring and engaging. I have had my thinking challenged, my perspective is wide and I appreciate what others have to say and ask in regards to what I am sharing. Through this type of online conversation I am inspired, my thinking is challenged and I begin to connect and learn from others, collaborations develop. Take a risk at sharing your voice with others.

Maybe it’s time to start your own blog. However, if you have something to say and don’t have a blog of your own, you are always welcome to be a guest blogger here. The invitation has been extended.

It’s Called Hard Work…. not “You’re Just Smart”

 

 

 

 

 

Kids are back in school and beginning their routine for success. Many times people will tell a student that gets good grades that they are “just smart” and it comes easily to them.

That is a slap in the face.

 

People want to be viewed as intelligent. Everyone  loves being associated with the adjective smart, and I, in turn, also have complimented others’ intelligences freely. It wasn’t until later that I realized how damaging and invalidating that simple praise could be.

Some people would try to take the hardest class of any subject they were remotely interested in, sacrifice time with friends and family to study and stay up late to get the grade desired. They wanted people to instantly think of “smart” when they thought of them.

As one gets older, however, being called smart no longer makes them feel accomplished, but rather seemed to degrade all their hard work and effort. Although it was meant as a compliment, “smart” became an excuse that described how success was achieved.

“Of course you got an A,” people said about high level classes. “You’re smart.” With that sentence, they discredited all the nights that were put in with only four hours of sleep because of studying. Instead, they attributed the grade to a single trait.

Smart isn’t just an excuse for successes, but also became an attempted condolence when one fails.

 

Following Stanford professor Carol Dweck’s research on motivation and mindset, the difference between praise for effort and praise for ability is significant. People who are used to their abilities being praised usually experience lower task persistence and enjoyment. They also experience increased negative self-affect and self-cognition.

On the other hand, praise for effort increases task enjoyment and performance. The praised demonstrate greater persistence in face of failure. Improving is more plausible when intelligence is viewed as malleable rather than fixed.

Being known as “smart” no longer flatters but  adds on to the pressure felt. People much rather prefer acknowledgement of to their efforts than to the simple, yet destructive, adjective “smart.”

Seriously, Why do Schools have Mascots?

 

How does a guy in a mountain lion suit inspire a shrine, a book, and 107,000 screaming fans? There’s something about mascots that stir up powerful emotions. Penn State’s Nittany Lion is a larger-than-life symbol of the pride that fans feel, says Jackie Esposito, University Archivist and co-author of The Nittany Lion: An Illustrated Tale. “Mascots embody that desire to support your school and are a visual representation of what we believe to be the best parts of our school or organization,” she says.

Penn State’s Nittany Lion mascot does one-handed pushups for fans after a touchdown vs. Notre Dame.

One of the most famous mascots was Old Abe the bald eagle, who was said to have called out a fierce battle cry as she circled the sky above her regiment, the 8th Wisconsin infantry. After the war, young men carried on the inter-state competition through sports. “Historically, post-Civil War was when intercollegiate athletic games and rivalries emerged,” Esposito says. Some mascots even trace their names to the war. For example, Illinois College’s teams are known as “The Blueboys,” or “The Lady Blues,” nicknames that began when many of the college’s students volunteered for the blue-uniformed Union army.

 

Schools or teams become embodied in their mascots. While many schools choose lions or panthers or bears for their fierceness or physical strength, other mascots convey decidedly different qualities. One such belongs to the University of California-Santa Cruz-Sammy the Banana Slug. “It sounds funny,” says Esposito, “but this mascot denotes something about the school.” With an emphasis on science and conservation, UCSC describes itself as “nestled in the redwood forests,” which is the slug’s home. Another example of an “anti-mascot” is found at the University of North Carolina School of the Arts, which doesn’t have an athletic program, but does boast…The Fighting Pickle.