“How He Loves” - the good, the unclear, and the dangerous imbalance...
I started this series of posts because I am often fielding questions about new worship songs... tips on re-worked hymns, and get into a lot of discussion about the theology of the songs we sing corporately, as the church. This particular post might seem overly critical BUT I read in the Scriptures that I am accountable for what I teach... and, as I’ve said before, I believe those who lead God’s people in song are teachers, for either good or bad, when they choose songs and lead others in singing them. That being said... I’m tackling a fairly popular song with a rather long post so, if you have the time I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
~~~~~~~
On David Crowder Band’s most recent Album “Church Music” there is a song covered called “How He Loves” that is compelling, very well-done, and is paired with a creative music video. The song was written by a guy named John Mark McMillan and was also covered by Kim Walker/Jesus Culture in 2008.
The story behind this psalm-like song is this:
“The song was penned following the death of a dear friend who, during a church staff meeting, prayed out loud "If it would shake the youth of a nation, I will give my life today". John McMillan was awoken in the middle of that very night by a phone call. His friend, who had mentioned those words during his church's staff meeting earlier that day, was killed in a car crash.” (Reference HERE)
Out of that experience came these lyrics:
Verse 1
He is jealous for me
Love's like a hurricane, I am a tree
Bending beneath the weight of His wind and mercy
When all of a sudden, I am unaware of these afflictions eclipsed by glory
and I realize just how beautiful You are and how great your affections are for me.
Chorus
Oh, how He loves us so
Oh, how He loves us
How He loves us so.
Yeah, He loves us
Woah, how He loves us
Woah, how He loves us
Woah, how He loves.
Verse 2
So we are His portion and He is our prize,
Drawn to redemption by the grace in His eyes
If grace is an ocean we're all sinking
So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss and my heart turns violently inside of my chest
(Crowder’s lyric says, ‘heaven meets earth like an unforseen kiss”...)
I don't have time to maintain these regrets when I think about the way
Chorus
That he loves us,
Woah, how He loves us
Woah, how He loves us
Woah, how He loves
[Whispered]: Well, I thought about You the day Stephen died and You met me between my breaking
I know that I still love You, God, despite the agony
...they want to tell me You're cruel
But if Stephen could sing, he'd say it's not true, cause...[voice breaks]...
Cause He loves us,
Woah, how He loves us
Woah, how He loves us
Woah, how He loves
So... my thoughts here are this:
- about 85% of this song is right on, with no further explaination needed...
- 10% of the song needs some explanation/clarification...
- 5% of the song is iffy at best and possibly unhelpful in terms of a healthy Biblical understanding of God’s love for His children.
The Good (85%) - Most of this song is a great reminder that God is a God who loves to a greater degree than any love that we can muster. We see that his patience and long suffering are almost boundless in his care for His people (Psalm 36:7, Psalm 51:1, Psalm 136:2).
This is especially important when we look at the lyrics in the context from whence they came... out of suffering. His friend and partner in ministry is killed unexpecedly in a car accident and McMillan, like many of us, is tempted by so many outside voices to reject a God of Love who would allow such tragic things to happen and instead declares boldly, “No! God is good!” and he is reminded of the LOVE of God for His children... not just in an emotional warm-fuzzy way but in the midst of suffering and heartache!
In many ways it sings a little like the classic hymn “It is Well With My Soul.”
“When peace like a river attendeth my way
When sorrows like sea billows roll
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say
It is well, it is well with my soul.”
Horatio Spafford wrote this song after the death of his 4 daughters in an accident at sea. They travelled ahead of him back to Europe and as he followed weeks later he asked the captain to tell him when they passed over the spot where the ship with his daughters had gone down. It is said that he wrote the lyrics to the hymn as the ship passed over that spot in the Atlantic.
Being able to point to the goodness of God and to lay hold of His mercy and love in the midst of hardship is the mark of a deep and robust faith in God.
In many ways, this song does just that and, presents God rightly in His majesty and greatness...
“Love's like a hurricane, I am a tree
Bending beneath the weight of His wind and mercy
When all of a sudden, I am unaware of these afflictions eclipsed by glory
and I realize just how beautiful You are and how great your affections are for me.”
What a great picture of the tree’s helplessness under the power of the mighty hurricane winds and how we are similarly subject to God’s infinite grandeur while at the same time invited to a personal and intimate relationship with this same God.
Even these lyrics from verse 2 are compelling:
“Drawn to redemption by the grace in His eyes
If grace is an ocean we're all sinking
So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss and my heart turns violently inside of my chest
(Crowder’s lyric says, ‘heaven meets earth like an unforseen kiss”...)
I don't have time to maintain these regrets when I think about the way”
“Drawn to redemption by the grace in His eyes... “its your kindness LORD which leads to repentance...” (Romans 2:4) And the great concept of drowning in the grace of God like an ocean that we can’t overcome... (Ephesians. 2:8-9)
“I don’t have time to maintain these regrets when I think about the way...
I think this is the real strength of the songs lyrics. It points to a strong and loving God who holds the world in the palm of his hands and loves His children beyond measure (Psalm 73:26, Isaiah. 44:24, Colossians 1:16-17)
Thats the 85%.
The Unclear - Now the 10% that needs a little clarification.
There are a few lines that are, I believe, Biblically true, but, out of context can be unclear at best and mis-leading at worst. I’ll copy the lyric and look at the clarifying scripture to help us:
“He is jealous for me”
While its true that our God is a “jealous God” (Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:23-24 , ) it must be made clear that He is Jealous for His Glory (Ezekiel 39:25),and for His people (corporate) in a way that is altogether different than the way that a High School boy is jealous when his girlfriend is talking with another boy in the hallway between class. The other clarification here is that while God is jealous for His children, one must be careful to over-emphasize his jealousy for one person, therefore placing it in the “high school” boy category unintentionally.
“and I realize just how beautiful You are and how great your affections are for me.”
Again, God LOVES his children (John 3:16-17, Psalm 69:16). I’m not calling that into question. More than anything this is just a caution for us to keep a healthy understanding of God’s love in contrast to human love. His affections for us are not a “puppy love” or a romantic love... They are much higher and deeper than ours.
The reason I bring this up is because there is a movement among some of our more charismatic brothers and sisters to promote, to a fault sometimes, the love of God, in an almost romantic sense for individual christians... rather than recognizing that God loves the individual as part of the Bride of Christ. In fact, there are some Christians who have taken that theological bent as far as saying that all of scripture can/should be read through the eyes of a “bridal paradigm.” So the Bride of Christ (and by extention, individual Christians) are the “reason” and central component of God’s redemption instead of CHRIST being the center and lens by which we understand the scriptures and understand God’s story of redemption.
As I said, this isn’t where the song needs to go and isn’t necessarily promoting this way of thinking... but I have heard it used in that setting (Kim Walker/Jesus Culture being closer to that line of thinking) and therefore want to clarify.
“So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss and my heart turns violently inside of my chest”
(Crowder’s lyric says, ‘heaven meets earth like an unforseen kiss”...)
I prefer Crowder’s lyric to the original for a couple of reasons. One, “unforseen kiss” needs little to no further explanation when telling of God come to earth (Philippians 2:5-8); whereas “sloppy wet kiss” either leads my mind down the “romantic” love (which i mentioned earlier) or at least Aunt Edna grabbing your cheeks and planting a sloppy wet kiss on your cheek with her bright pink lipstick and strong mothball/floral scent combination.
Now, we see a fair amount of romantic... even erotic language in the scriptures (Song of Solomon to highlight the most prominent) that makes the parallel between the love of a man and woman and the love of Christ and His bride... however, is need not be a one-for-one parallel but rather a tool, using our understanding of love, to help us get a glimpse of the greater love of God than we could normally comprehend.
So, these parts aren’t un-Biblical... but need to be put in their proper context in order to no be mis-understood.
Now... to the 5%...
The dangerous imbalance
There is one line that is more than un-clear for me... but borders on being Biblically un-true.
“So we are His portion and He is our prize,”
I cannot find one place in scripture where we, as individuals or collectively as the church, where we are described as being God’s portion. Now... it is absolutely TRUE that HE is our prize. John Piper says that the goal of the Gospel is that WE GET GOD. ("God is the Gospel") and that is so good.
The problem is the line right before.
Saying that we are God’s portion connotes that there is something that God needs to sustain Him... to satisfy Him... to fulfill Him... and that we are that thing.
The REALITY is that He is OUR Portion (Psalm 73:26). I think this is very dangerous when it comes to an accurate picture of God and although it is only a small, single line in the whole song, it has the potential to make the whole song more of a liability than an asset in corporate worship.
Overall, the song is musically creative, lyrically powerful and, I think, can be helpful in assisting God’s people in worship. The key is for us to be Biblically sound and discerning so that we can help God’s people worship in Spirit & Truth (John 4:20-26)
21 comments:
Hey Jake - I enjoyed your post!
A couple months back, the WT at my church did this song. Without ever hearing the song before and breaking it down (as you did) Biblically, I was very uncomfortable while they played it - as was my wife. My heart was screaming for them to stop! I appreciate you breaking this down – however – I still have a problem with it being used in corporate worship. As you said, there are parts of the song that need explaining – but I would go even further in saying that almost the entire song needs explaining. Simply because, in our day and age, the word ‘love’ means so many different things – from “I love peanut-butter” to “I love my wife” and “I love God” to “I love the MN Twins”.
Most of the song focuses ‘us’ and not so much on God. Even though we’re singing of how much He loves us – it’s almost as if the focus is on us being lathered with His love rather than Him lathering His love on us. …? Wait a minute… Let me rephrase that – the lyrics seem almost ‘self-indulgent’ or ‘self-absorbed’ at times. Screaming ‘Oh how ‘he’ loves ‘Us’ rather than ‘Oh how ‘He’ loves ‘us’. The Second verse says: “So we are His portion and He is our prize” – like you already pointed out, the first part of this verse is backwards and contradicts Scripture. I think this may be another place where one could say that the song is ‘self-indulgent’ – “We are His portion”. Almost as if to say – “look at us – look at me – look how significant I am”.
I agree with you, for the most part, that when correctly understood and presented (and when some of the lyrics are removed / changed), this song has some potential for worship – but wouldn’t go as far as ‘corporate worship’. Maybe to avoid confusion – maybe because I’m a little old fashioned - ?? But definitely because I don’t think it’s fit for corporate worship regardless of worship style. Since we’re on the subject of worship music, I think a great contrast, and a song that might help my point, is the song “How Deep the Fathers Love for Us”. I won’t post the lyrics – but I love how the song describes God’s love for us while keeping a Gospel-Centered message. If you merely tell someone that God loves them – it doesn’t make sense to them why God loves them. But bring the cross into the conversation and everything will make perfect sense.
My $0.02
In Christ,
sam
ps - sorry for such a long comment!
A thought to consider regarding your concern with the lyric: "We are His portion, and He is our prize".
Titus 2:14 "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." (ESV)
The idea conveyed in "for His own possession" is that we as believers are "specially selected; exempt from ordinary laws of distribution". Because of the redeeming work of Christ, Christians are the private possession of God.
Peculiar is from the Latin "peculium". It has come to mean odd or strange, but in the original language carried the idea of being something special, even set apart. In fact one usage in the Latin was for that portion of the spoils of war exclusively set aside for the captain.
We are the special, set apart portion given exclusively to the "Captain of our salvation"! (Hebrews 2:10, KJV)
Thanks for the comments. I can see, that the lyric "we are his portion" may NOT be speaking of us fulfilling some part of God but rather our unique status made possible by His love for us. In fact Deuteronomy using the term "his portion" in reference to God's people... again, assigning them special honor because of they are uniquely HIS. Perhaps that is the authors intent in the lyric... and has, I would concede, Biblical merit.
The caution for me remains because of the lack of context or faulty context that so many in evangelicalism have when it comes to God's love. It is too much like puppy-love and not enough providential, saving love.
I come back to my statement that I still think there is merit in the song, however, context is key and teaching your people the good and bad of it is of utmost importance!
Thanks!
I have to strongly disagree with your post "I cannot find one place in scripture where we, as individuals or collectively as the church, where we are described as being God’s portion." The song of Moses in Deut 32:9 says, "For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance." (NIV). I'm not sure if this is where the song gets its words from, but it's in the Bible...therefore it is Biblical. What isn't Biblical is, perhaps, your interpretation that the sont is implying that God "needs" us in any way. I think the context (in the song and in Deuteronomy) is to remind us that we are, in fact, and in truth, His. We are His portion and we must live and present ourselves as such.
Ju - Thanks for your comment. I think I did clarify a bit with my own comment (the 3rd one on the list) by trying to make the point that YES, we are God's own possession BUT that he isn't in NEED of us like I am in NEED of Him. THAT was even why I labeled that one concern (the 5% "dangerous imbalance").
To be fair, the context of that whole passage (not just the one verse with the one word "portion" in it) is dealing with God's interaction with man. AND how God is merciful to man who is terribly foolish. The part about being God's portion comes after Moses explains that God has granted lands and borders and nations to the men of the earth but the Lord's own people (as said Jeremy who commented 2nd) a peculiar people, set apart... as it says in Titus 2:4... "A people for His own possession."
The concern, that I still have, is the lack of balance in the typical American Evangelical church who sings such a lyric and the focus remains on "me" as opposed to God... where it belongs.
Again, I overstated the "I cannot find one place in scripture..." and I made a note of that in the comments... BUT I still stand by my comment to Jeremy here at the end of the post:
"The caution for me remains because of the lack of context or faulty context that so many in evangelicalism have when it comes to God's love. It is too much like puppy-love and not enough providential, saving love.
I come back to my statement that I still think there is merit in the song, however, context is key and teaching your people the good and bad of it is of utmost importance!"
Thanks.
Looking at Scripture in the lense of the Bridal Paradigm does nothing to take away what Jesus did on the cross. Jesus IS the focus. We as the church are his lovesick bride. If you look in Song of Solomon the bride is searching all over the place for her beloved and misses him dreadfully. The whole point of us looking at ourselves as the Bride of Christ is because we are just that. The Lord loves us to no ends, the most purest of romantic love. Thats why there will be a marriage banquet after this world fades away! Its a beautiful thing. While I would agree slightly that looking at myself personally as the Bride can be taken way out of context, it is merely saying that the access I have to Jesus is the same intimacy shared between husband and wife. Thats the kind of power that we are joined with as Christians. I am beginning a new House of Prayer in the Northland of Kansas City. We are not governed by the International House of Prayer, but we fully endorse it. I've never had such a close walk with the Lord until I began looking at Him in that context. He is everything to me. I fully am ready to go into the ministry and teach children all about their loving father.
With all of that aside, I fully AGREE with your statement on the unbiblical-ness of the line in this song. I get very uncomfortable every time we sing this song because of that reason. I go to a seeker-sensitive church where it is especially dangerous to play that song because most of the newcomers do not have a strong biblical knowledge. Thanks again for breaking down this song in the biblical context. I just love studying theology and its use in worship music!
Let me start by saying I love this song, and I think it is an incredible and beautiful, worship-facilitating song. However, when using this song in corporate worship, due to the unclear nature of "We are His portion" I simply change the lyrics to say "He is our portion and He is our prize". I don't think it takes anything away from the song and it eliminates the distraction. I also use "unforeseen" kiss in replacement of the "sloppy wet" kiss for the same reason. Just a suggestion for people who lead for more conservative congregations or who just want to avoid the potential distraction.
http://johnmarkmcmillan.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-he-loves-david-crowder-and-sloppy.html
a little insight to the song.
I feel like if that one line is such an issue, why can't the worship leader take time to explain it, or teach about what the song is talking about? I think worship leaders should probably do that more often instead of just blasting a song up on the screen and running with it.
just a thought.
-- Ben
Deuteronomy 32:9
But the Lord's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
Philippians 3:14
I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
I've had issues with the use of the song that I've been trying to reconcile. Here is a site that gives a very interesting and open perspective that will make one ponder whether it's our misplaced values that are dictating our feelings or whether it's HS nudges. The fact that we are concerened with getting things right in worship is a good thing, but I guess we can bring our misled subjective perspectives into that as well.
Here is the site:
http://ssbcworshipministry.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/hymnology-how-he-loves/
I don't often respond at all when someone leaves an anonymous comment on a blog without any option for a direct response. That kind of response, no matter the content, is immature at best and disingenuous at worst.
Secondly, this blog post from me was on March 10th... 2010... almost a year ago. What is funny to me is that I've written about 4 or 5 other songs since then and this one still gets a comment every once in a while... i guess I hit a nerve. But I digress...
However I think there is a point to be made.
In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul is imploring young Timothy to not be ashamed and rightly handle the truth.
The verses that you referenced are/have been noted. The issue I have is not necessarily with the word "portion" ... in that we, as his collective people belong to Him and are dearly loved. I have no issue there... but the way it is often used in many "jesus-is-my-boyfriend-type" songs is the problem.
The article you linked references Matt Redman's version of "Here is Love"... which also deals with the visual concept of heaven "kissing" earth. Again... on its own it is a beautiful poetic line that communicated the invasion of God's glorious redemption come to our broken and sinful world in Christ Jesus. Again... no issue.
BUT... put it all together and it sounds a lot like a sappy and romantic love that God has for his people (and his people for him) as opposed to a holy love (agape) that comes from God and is expressed back to him.
So... do I, like the worship pastor who wrote the article you linked, understand the meaning behind the song. YES. I can see the Biblical components and Can the song be clearly explained or a few words tweaked to make it less confusing? Sure.
But my original concern still stands. In this time in Christian history and culture in America there is an overwhelming amount of worship music that is dangerously vague and ultimately un-helpful. As a worship leader I need to be as discerning as a pastor opening his mouth (and his Bible) to preach from God's word.
If you want to use the song in leading worship... be my guest. I've, though study, prayer and self-examination found it just over the line of helpful and beneficial and will chose another song.
Mr. McMillan's original lyric "sloppy wet kiss" is clearly meant to stir controversy and generate income. Its triple/quadruple entendre does not convey clearly Jesus' incarnation in any way whatsoever.
The multiple whoas, at least when heard performed, sound an awful lot like a sort of self-indulgent teenage angst utterances.
Just another overly commercial musical claptrap. OK for a youth retreat setting perhaps, but never a corporate worship experience. EVER.
HI,
I'm uncomfortable with the comparison of God's Love to a Hurricane while I'm a tree. I would love to know from you friends where does this natural comparison display qualities of God's Love.
Not being too super spiritual I Know from natural principles "A hurricane forcefully bends a tree and destroys it depending on its speed". God doesnt force His Love on anyone. Infact nature of God's love is contrary to the nature of Hurricane. God's love is gentle, builds up a person, restores oneself. I also feel that taking some qualities (speed, power) of somethin disastrous like hurricane
and comparing it with God's love is incorrect. The song not only has to be scripturally be correct but also literally be correct. Even if one wants to lament there should be no room for confusion saying 85% correct or so. If God's Love is like a hurricane stands true to few guys then why not say "God's Love is like a Tsunami which changes lives" But dear friend I have yet to see a tsunami or a hurricane with instead of causing loss has restored a broken city, caused prosperity. My personal opinion is we should not parts or pieces of anything compare it with something. There are few verses sounding scripturally correct as pointed out by few good people earlier. But it doesn't make the song correct. For God is not 85% holy but He is 100% Holy.
As far as possible renowned, so greatly blessed worship leaders should realise what they compose many people blindly sing. The responsiblity is far more greater on their shoulders that no part of the lyric should make a controversial meaning.
I know my comments could hurt the feelings & the composer of the song may not agree. But We also have to keep in mind the general public so doesn't read the WORD of GOD and can be misled by small ambiguious things even if they are as less as 5% as claimed already. Satan preys on doubts.
Such a song with inappropriate lyrics in parts should be at the best be avoided in church worship. There are manys songs to sing so we must be wise enough to select proper songs. Nobody is perfect but we can all try to be error free as much as possible by GOD's GRACE.
--Rahul..
I am 100% a sinner and therefore cannot offer God 100% what he deserves. None of us can write a song that 100% glorifies God but we can worship a God that forgives our sinfulness through his son. It's great to keep each others eyes on the prize but at some point we need to realize we will never have a song that can describe his love for us.
Hi Jake, I read your post and it had an impact on me we were going do that song on Sunday and we didn't. I youtubed the song to see if Hillsong did it, b/c I just wondered and United did it...So a couple days ago. I decided to do a search on Biblegateway.com and so I did a search for "We Portion" in the King James Version. I was actually surprised to see the search result on number 12. Duet. 32:9. I have never posted in a blog like this but it helped me and I thought it may be a help to others. Here is the link to the verse: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:9&version=9
Thanks, Tyler
Hi Tyler - Thanks for commenting. I think I have commented (in the comments) that the Deuteronomy passage is clear that "the Lord's portion is his people." I have no problem IF we have a right understanding of what that means.
I fear that in our current evangelical culture, that is very man-centered in its overall theology, the idea of being God's portion is taken WAY beyond what it should be.
I have heard it said, "God is enamored with you." Or "God is madly in love with you..." and while there is truth in the concept that God is in love with you we are not the primary object of God's affection. God himself is the primary object of his own affections.
NOW... if we want to talk about God's love for his people we can do that. I believe HE loves us more and in greater ways than we can possibly comprehend.
My problem with this song being used in corporate worship without any clarity given from those who are leading, is that is can, even unintentionally, perpetuate the idea that we are God's primary focus... and that just isn't the case and, in fact, continues an unhealthy and un-Biblical understanding of God and man.
I'm not saying the song CAN'T be used in corporate worship, although I have chosen to not use it in our context, but that if it is used there are somet htings that should be clear so that you lead your people well... not just in song but in true worship of God in a way that honors Him as supreme.
If a modern English song has to be explained then it has problems. Songs used for worship should be clear and easily understood by most. This song is not easily understood.
Spafford's song "It is Well" is self explainatory and clear as to meaning, though knowing the reason behind the song makes one appreciate it more. Although some landlocked peoples with out TV or internet may not understand "sea billows"
"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation of our sins."
"We love because he first loved us."
- 1 John 4:19
I agree with the 1 John post. We love BECAUSE He (God) first loved us in Christ Jesus.
The Biblical/Theological problem I'm starting to see in Evangelical Christianity that paints God's love for us as a romantic love... which it is not.
God's love for us is not on the same level as any type of love that we can express as humans.
So he ABSOLUTELY LOVES US... that is not in question. It is the type of love portrayed that is in question.
This song, although affirming the Truth that God loves his people, makes it hard, without some explanation to decipher between perfect Agape love and jr.high puppy love or some kind of quasi-erotic/romantic love. Unfortunately there is too much focus on the latter and not nearly enough on the former. This song, on its own, doesn't help clarify that for the singer...
Sometimes "Biblical Accuracy" is used as a pretext for unhelpful criticism. Left unchecked - criticism such as this has led to innumerable church splits.
I believe the root of this problem is that people need a place - a reason for others to hear them. They use fear of "Biblical Inaccuracy" to raise the volume of their voice.
As people gather around the speaker's complaint, a natural split arises among brothers. In this case, we are splitting over one line among many in a worship song that is generally excellent.
The missing piece here is humility on the part of the critic. As was pointed out, there is, in fact, a verse declaring that Jacob is the LORD's portion.
Humility, forebearance, and the love of the saints. These are as deeply needed - perhaps more deeply needed than the elusive "Biblical Accuracy" that produces only poor, shriveled fruit.
Dear "Anonymous"
First - Anonymous is probably the least genuine way to engage in any kind of discussion. You have no accountability and a direct line of response. Usually Anonymous comments aren't deserving of a response.
In this case though I think there are a couple of things to address.
Second - I have adjusted (if you've read the comments) that there IS a Biblical explanation for being the Lord's Portion and that God's people are his portion in terms of us (God's people) belonging to Him. TOO often there is a focus on God being "enamored" with us and that turns the real meaning of the word portion on its head.
Third - I'm not sure how I'm using "Biblical Accuracy" as a pretext for unhelpful and apparently prideful (opposite of humble) criticism.
I, (Jake) who wrote the post, didn't write it from some ivory theological tower proclaiming what is right and accurate from afar and smiting all those who would disagree with my exact theological flavor. This is not to create division among the brothers. Rather it was to being clarity to those who, along with me, lead worship regularly in the context of a local church. In OUR context we are butting up against a theology that exalts man and treats God's love in a romantic sense... and has co-opted this song along with others to an unhelpful and confusing end for some people under my care.
as their pastor my desire is to help them and remove confusion and point them to Christ Jesus and the Bible as our help and authority.
As I noted in the original post... there are some good and very helpful components of this song. I would even go so far as to say some folks might use this in their context and it would all be ok.
I am just saying that despite its good components it would require at LEAST an explanation to clarify rather than a blanket endorsement.
Your comment, "Humility, forebearance, and the love of the saints. These are as deeply needed - perhaps more deeply needed than the elusive "Biblical Accuracy" that produces only poor, shriveled fruit."
I guess I'm confused if you actually know anything of the fruit in my life or that of the people in our church (to whom my ministry is directed, and, consequently the primary audience of this blog... the people here around me and those who lead with me). Because you are an an "anonymous" commenter I have no idea who you are and thus no credible criticism can be received from you.
I will close with this. Humility, forbearance, and love for my brothers (and sisters) is, indeed a necessity. I do not believe, however, that to have love for my brother is to ignore striving for "Biblical accuracy". They are not mutually exclusive. In fact I see them as both/and.
Furthermore it is BECAUSE I love my brothers, and those under my care that I will continue to parse popular worship/christian music ... not to be unnecessarily critical, or to be accurate for accuracy sake, but to be careful... like Paul tells Timothy... to watch both my life and doctrine closely. My life: am I responding with humility, love, and gentleness to those around me as an extension of God's grace? My doctrine: am I holding fast to the primary teaching of the Bible and striving to let the scriptures shape my theology rather than the other way around...
again... Anonymous... if your desire is to bring a word of correction... or even gentile rebuke it would be better to put your name on it so that it has actual credibility and not a prideful, random, shot from a distance.
Post a Comment