On June 6, 1882, George Matheson sat alone a day before his sister’s wedding and penned “O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go.” Though delighted for his sister, the Scottish minister felt sorrow mixed in with joy before the wedding festivities. At age 20, Matheson lost his eyesight, and his fiancé at the time decided that she could not be married to a blind man. His sister had taken him in to care for him, and through her love and support of him, Matheson became an effective preacher and minister of the gospel. 

Despite being absent of any real musical ability, I have always been fascinated with the hymn lyrics and the history behind them. Some of these stories are legendary among Christians. For example, who can forget the tragic events that precipitated the writing of “It Is Well” by Horatio Spafford? In God’s providence, the hymn born out of Spafford’s tragedy has provided great comfort for Christians for well over a century.
However, it is a lesser-known hymn with a tragic story that I want to highlight today, as it too has provided me with great comfort. On June 6, 1882, George Matheson sat alone a day before his sister’s wedding and penned “O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go.” Though delighted for his sister, the Scottish minister felt sorrow mixed in with joy before the wedding festivities. At age 20, Matheson lost his eyesight, and his fiancé at the time decided that she could not be married to a blind man. His sister had taken him in to care for him, and through her love and support of him, Matheson became an effective preacher and minister of the gospel. His sister learned Greek and Hebrew, and she helped Matheson study the biblical text every day. Some have reported that he knew the biblical text so well – and was such a gifted preacher – that unless you knew he was blind, you would not have suspected such to be the case.
Now with his sister to be married, Matheson found himself alone again. It was out of this moment of bittersweetness – even deep despondency – that Matheson wrote such comforting lyrics: “O Love that wilt not let me go, I rest my weary soul in Thee. I give Thee back the life I owe, that in Thine ocean depths its flow may richer, fuller be.” Matheson later shared that it took him all of five minutes to write the lyrics, saying that it was almost as if it the words were dictated to him. Of his own admission, he said that he was not gifted with a natural sense of rhythm – again, something I can certainly relate to!
Read More
O Love That Will Not Let Me Go – (Tune: St. Margaret)
O Love That Will Not Let Me Go (Indelible Grace)
O Love That Will Not Let Me Go – Wide Open Spaces by The Sound of Wales
Related Posts:

Over and over again in the Bible we are told that if we love God we will keep his commandments. And that is not just Old Testament stuff. It is repeated constantly in the New as well. Jesus made it clear that if we are to love him, we must keep his commandments. The idea that we must choose between loving God and obeying God is as dumb as saying we must choose between breathing in or breathing out. 

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy in which an either/or is being demanded, when a both/and is the way to go. One can get rather technical about all this, but let’s keep it really simple. An obvious and easy-to-understand example features a TV ad for tacos.
Adults are arguing and debating about which must be used: soft or hard taco shells. A little girl rightly asks, “Why not both?” Why not indeed! It is a false dilemma to demand one or the other when both can do. In this case it is a personal preference – a matter of choice. Thus there is no right or wrong answer.
When it comes to more important matters however, we must be a bit more careful. Some things clearly ARE a case of either/or. Let me offer just one quick example of this. You can either embrace and affirm the teachings of Islam or you embrace and affirm the teachings of Christianity, but you cannot do both.
The reason for this is quite clear – and quite logical. At the very heart of the Christian faith lies the affirmation that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on a cross and rose again for our sins. Islam denies this. So if you accept the core beliefs of Christianity, then you cannot accept the main teachings of Islam. They are mutually exclusive.
But in many other areas we do have clear cases of both/and. We do NOT need to pick one while denying the other. Instead we can affirm both. But so often I find rather fuzzy thinking in this regard. When I find the need to emphasise a certain truth, that does NOT mean I am negating or minimising another truth. In many cases we can usually affirm both truths simultaneously. Let me offer a few examples of this (out of many).
1. Evangelism or social action – why not both?
This is something I likely have penned a few dozen articles on, but it keeps coming up. Some believers insist that we should only evangelise, and ignore any works in society around us. But it has always been both. Simply read some church history here.
Wherever Christians have gone with the gospel, they of course told people the good news that Christ died for their sins, but they also performed many good works. The early church could not do this quite as much because of all the intense persecution.
But as things quieted down, believers led the way in so many charitable works and causes, be it in education, caring for the sick, helping the poor and destitute, and so on. They set up schools (and eventually even universities, they built hospitals, they worked with the poor and helped those in prisons and in so many other areas.
The two went together, and that is how it should be. But as mentioned, I discuss all this in plenty of detail in other articles. Here is just one: https://billmuehlenberg.com/1997/10/10/the-case-for-christian-social-involvement/
2. Love or obedience – why not both?
This is another area where too many Christians can get things wrong. So many believers (often progressive or lefty or liberal or biblically illiterate types) will claim that all that matters is that we love.
Read More
Related Posts:

In frequenting the houses of others to find food, this lazy person would avail himself to the affairs of others, be a busybody, and thus live anything but quietly. Visiting a neighbor is like eating candy—it’s something fun, but one can have too much of a good thing. Proverbs 25:16 warns us not to indulge with honey lest we eat too much and vomit. Similarly, Proverbs 25:17 (the very next verse) warns our feet not to be too frequent in our neighbor’s house lest his welcome turn to hatred.

Some people refuse to work and are intentionally lazy and idle. They know better but disobey the instruction of God and refuse to follow the example of hard-working Christians. They busy themselves in the lives of others, and burden others with their needs. What does Paul say to these people?
In 1 Thessalonians 4:9–12, Paul urges Christians to show love and, in doing so, live quietly, mind their own affairs, and work. These actions make for a good, Christian testimony to unbelievers and a life of independence, not unduly burdening others.
In 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, Paul instructs believers what to do with someone who persistently refuses to work—avoid such a person while admonishing him to work. Such a person is disobedient to God, turns into a busybody, and is an unnecessary burden. In 2 Thessalonians 3:12, Paul directly addresses the lazy person—live quietly and eat your own bread (i.e., work to meet your own needs).
What might the Proverbs add to Paul’s command to live quietly and eat one’s own bread?
Live Quietly
The command to eat one’s own bread implies that these lazy people were eating the bread of others.
Read More
Related Posts: