I’ve long had concerns with the attitude from many church members that we need to throw out our modern worship songs wholesale (or close to it).  I respect their earnestness and desire to see God honored in the church — but I believe they’ve sufficiently missed the boat on this issue to have gone about it entirely backward.

We Have it Backward

The primary arguments I’ve heard for years are that our modern songs are “too emotional,” and/or too much like romantic love songs.  (The term “Jesus is My Boyfriend” songs is common.)  I would submit to you, though, that:

a) our worship ought to be emotional (‘though not only emotional), and
b) if our romantic love songs and our worship songs sound too much alike, the problem is with the love songs, not with the worship songs.

[Tweet “If our love songs & worship songs sound too much alike, the problem is with the love songs.”]

I’ve had a post on this subject steeping in my mind for several years now, but hadn’t gotten around to writing it.  Then I came across the article at Faith Street renouncing 10 particular worship songs.  I have several issues with the article, not the least of which is that its author doesn’t make the slightest attempt to argue any of her points from Scripture, but she writes with an attitude that suggests such an absolutism.  In so doing, I think she not only makes numerous points not required by Scripture; she also makes several which are contrary to Scripture.

In this post I aim to address the objections themselves, rather than the songs used to illustrate them (although this may get a little messy, as that’s not how the original article is broken down).  Note: You may need to click through to the original link to know what songs are being referenced.

1. “It’s a safe bet to do away with any song that might make, say, that first-time church visitor (or your grandmother) squirm about relating to God.”

This is referencing a song that may fall into that “Jesus is My Boyfriend” category.  The assertion is that this makes us uncomfortable because God is, well, God.  And that is true!  God is the Creator, the Almighty. He’s worthy of honor and glory.

However, to reduce him to only that doesn’t make Him greater in our minds than what He should be; it diminishes Him.  God is great and holy and magnificent.  We cannot lose sight of that.  But God is — and our relationship with Him is — multidimensional.  He is Father, Shepherd, (by implication) Friend.  He describes Himself in the nurturing context of a nursing mother and a hen caring for her chicks.  And yes, as Husband and Lover.

Maybe the “safe” thing is to avoid making anyone squirm.  But maybe we need to squirm a little.  Maybe we need to be taken out of our “churchy” comfort zone and reminded that God knows us more intimately than any earthly lover, and He desires for us to know Him more, as well.

[Tweet “Maybe we need to squirm a little; maybe we need to be taken out of our ‘churchy’ comfort zone.”]

2a. “This song also makes no mention of God or Jesus. Who do you want to draw you close? Could be the Lord. Could also be your middle school crush. It’s unclear….”

I have no specific Scriptural objection to this complaint, but…really?  This strikes me as incredibly petty.  If none of our songs specified their subject by name, this would concern me.  I would wonder if we were ashamed to admit we’re talking to God.  But do we think He’s stupid?  My husband does not have to use my name (or a title) every time he speaks for me to know he’s talking to me, and I think we can give God credit for being rather more intelligent than we are.

More importantly, if you would lay everything down for the approval of a middle school crush, you’re being idolatrous, plain and simple.  These are not words that ought to be sung to anyone less than God, and when we can so readily equate them, that only serves to show how inappropriately we have elevated the people in our lives.  (One who knows the Scriptures well should also recognize the allusion to Abraham and understand this as a commitment to whole-hearted faith.)

2b. “….On top of that, this song is empty of any real substance.”

I suppose this is a matter of opinion.  I’m not sure what the author considers “real substance.”  What I hear in this song is a reliance on God (“Draw me close to You; never let me go”) to enable the kind of real faith that prompted God to refer to Abraham as His friend (“I lay it all down again to hear You say that I’m Your friend.”).  I hear that the Lord is desirable above all else.  (“You are my desire.  No one else will do.”)  And then a reiteration of the recognition that we require God’s constant enabling grace to follow through.  (“Help me find the way. Bring me back to You.”)

Maybe that’s not “good enough” for the author, but that’s “substance” to me.

3. “Jewish people don’t write or say Yahweh to refer to God out of respect — instead writing the name without its vowels, YHWH, or using the alternate Adonai, meaning “Lord.” So, to sing a song that not only uses the name Yahweh, but emphasizes the shouting of it seems . . . odd….”

The author goes on to say that “the Vatican agrees — in 2008, it removed/replaced the name in all of its songs and prayers, and the Christian Reformed Church removed every occurrence of Yahweh and Jehovah from its Psalter Hymnal.”

Her conclusion is that we ought to “fall more in line with Carol Bechtel, Western Theological Seminary professor, who says, ‘[T]he most obvious reason to avoid using the proper and more personal name of God in the Old Testament is simply respect for God.'”

To put it bluntly, this is ridiculous.  To begin with, her primary appeals are to Jews & Catholics — not typically authorities of note to the audience (conservative Protestants) she’s targeting.  In fact, both groups (Jews & Catholics) are characterized by their frequent addition of men’s tradition to the Word of God — something Jesus heartily disapproved of.

The Bible tells us to “Beware lest anyone cheat [us] through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

It is utterly absurd to look at the example of the Scriptures — where God gave us His name, referred to Himself by it, told us that by calling upon it we are saved, indicated that the righteous run to it like a strong tower, etc. —  and conclude that the best way to respect Him is to reject this name that He gave us and substitute our own preferred title for it instead.

We’re told not to blaspheme, profane it, or take it in vain.  We are not told not to use it.

4b. “….On top of that, what it does speak to is such a small fraction of the fullness of the gospel story. It leaves out the resurrection, Jesus’ teachings, the coming of the Kingdom — new heavens and new earth — just to name a few things.”

In case you noticed that 4a is missing, that’s because 4a is simply the repetition of an earlier complaint — a “lack of substance.” Apparently, if a song doesn’t say a lot, that’s equivalent to not saying anything, in the author’s estimation.

But we’ve already essentially dealt with that objection, so let’s move on to the next: that this one song doesn’t cover the entirety of the gospel.  I’m not even sure what to say to that, it’s so ridiculous.  Does every individual chapter of the Bible convey the entire gospel message from start to finish?  Of course not!  So why should every song be required to?  If there is something theologically flawed about the song it should, of course, be discarded (or adjusted so it’s correct), but if we threw out every song that doesn’t tell the whole story from Creation to the Fall to the crucifixion to the resurrection to the new heavens and the new earth, and including Jesus’ teachings, I don’t think we’d have any songs left!

(Frankly, the author is nitpicking here, as well, to say that the song omits the resurrection.  Going from “grave” to “sky” implies the resurrection, even if it doesn’t use the word resurrection.)

“And, come on, the idea of heaven being in “the sky” is just theologically incorrect.”

Perhaps the author should spend more time getting to know her Bible and less time disputing others’ use of it.  That the song equates the sky and heaven is an outside imposition onto the lyric, not something inherent in it,  and Jesus’ being “in the sky” following His death is not unbiblical.  (See Acts 1:9,11; 1 Thess. 4:17)

5. “This song [“….Like a rose, trampled on the ground, you took the fall and thought of me above all.”] is rather beautiful, until its last line — which is utterly man-centered. Pastor John Piper took that line to task: “He thought of his glory above all on the cross . . . . God always thinks of himself above us. He is always more important than us.” While the Bible does say Jesus had his people in mind — i.e. Galatians 2:20, “And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” — we were certainly not “above all.”

I have mixed feelings on this one.  The issue here is one of correct theology, and this is one of two objections in the original article that I’m inclined to agree with.  However, I think we have to be careful not to confuse imprecision of wording with outright heresy.

I don’t think this “above all” is meant to be taken literally (as in, above everything, including His own glory).  I think it is meant to convey “above all of creation” or “above all consideration for His own comfort.”

Could it have been written with greater accuracy?  Definitely.  Is the author unduly harsh with a lyricist who has placed artistry above literalness?  Perhaps.

I would not have any issue, though, with an article about our worship songs that focused entirely on this type of concern.

6. “This one is demonstrative of the many Christian worship songs that overpromise on what we undoubtedly under-deliver — essentially, a willingness to trust God with abandon….Often I’ve caught myself singing along when suddenly I’m struck by a question: “Wait, would I?” Would I really go to the ends of the earth? And then I feel like I’m making false, outlandish statements to the God who knows my heart — my prideful, arrogant, selfish human heart.”

The objection here is essentially to any song that says, “I will,” and follows it up with something we can’t guarantee to do perfectly.  I understand this concern.  I’ve wrestled within myself over similar lyrics, too.  But the fact that we cannot perfectly follow through (‘though important to recognize!) does not mean we shouldn’t express our commitment to do so.

The Psalmist said, “Early will I seek you.”

Peter told Jesus He would never stumble on account of Him.  Jesus gently corrected Peter, informing him that he would deny Jesus three times by morning, but He did not chastise Peter for having declared his loyalty.

As believers, we have to learn to balance an understanding of our own inherent sinfulness with the knowledge of the overcoming grace given to us through Christ.  There is a “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” kind of thing going on.  Is there any reason to believe God honors our baby steps of faith, and our Spirit-given desire to follow Him completely, less than He did the father in the gospel account?

(And can you imagine how unwieldy a song would be if we filled it up with modifying clauses, rather than accepting it as an overall truth based on the desires of our heart, not an absolute?)

7. “It’s not necessarily that there’s anything wrong with this song, but it provides so little in the way of theological depth. It’s not that every song should spell out the gospel in its entirety, but there’s something irksome about songs that seem intended to make us feel, to simply incite that euphoric worship experience, that spiritual high. It almost seems cheap . . . or fake.”

This is one of the objections I find most problematic.  She says she doesn’t mean that “every song should spell out the gospel in its entirety,” but that’s exactly what she expressed an issue with in regard to an earlier song: that it didn’t include every detail of the gospel story.

The bigger problem here is the message that a song meant to “make us feel” is undesirable.

Purely cerebral worship is undesirable.  It is worship without heart.  We are emotional beings, and God has both commanded us to “feel” (“Rejoice in the Lord always.” “Delight yourself in the LORD.” etc.) and instructed us to love Him with every aspect of our being.  “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul,  and with all your strength.”  Worship that most pleases & honors God involves the emotions!

[Tweet “Purely cerebral worship is undesirable. It is worship without heart. “]

I’m not suggesting we check our brains at the door!  We definitely need to have solid teaching and sound theology.  But when we throw out the “emotional,” we’re not honoring God; we’re leading ourselves into a dead substitute for worship.  I challenge you to delve into the Scriptures on this and see if you don’t find more verses that call us to the expression of various emotions than verses that call us to an unemotional, purely “rational” focus.

[Tweet “When we throw out emotion we’re not honoring God; we’re choosing a dead substitute for worship.”]

8. “Problem lyric: ‘ . . . And in his presence our problems disappear.’ It’s unfair (not to mention incorrect) to sing a song that suggests life as a Christian is easy, without problems, an all around good time.”

I would agree with the “conclusion” here, but I don’t agree that the song in question communicates that message.  Once again I believe the author is being overly literal.  Maybe I’m just crazy, but I have never understood this song to be saying that our problems actually go away.  I have always understood it to mean that when we’re in His presence, we’re focused on eternal things and not concerned with temporal ones — like our problems.  That is, they disappear from our immediate attention.

9. “Really, I’m just not fond of this type of song in general — the ones sung from God’s point of view. There’s something off to me, something that feels like we’re taking on God’s greatness and goodness and glory by singing as if we were God himself….Rather, worship should be our response to those attributes of God, a corporate praising of him, to him — not us singing for him, on his behalf.”

I can somewhat understand this perspective, too, but…should we then never read those parts of His Word that consist of Him speaking to us?  The Bible not only tells us that we’re to worship the Lord in song, but also that we’re to speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.  Is not reminding our brothers and sisters of His Word one way of speaking to them in spiritual songs?

10. “Problem lyric: ‘So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss . . . ‘ This one lyric is so awkward that worship teams have been known to change the line to “like an unforeseen kiss.” Definitely less uncomfortable. I don’t have any real qualms with the rest of the song, but . . . sloppy wet kiss? Sounds like something dogs or teenagers with raging hormones do. Something my worship could do without. That’s not to say the whole song should go — just that one line.”

I’ve never heard this one before but…yeah; I find this one a bit creepy.  I did click through and read the lyricist’s explanation, and I can appreciate where he’s coming from, but I still think that, separated from the writer’s intentional explanation, this just sounds bizarre.

To my mind, it depicts God in a human context, and does so in a manner that’s unflattering.  Speaking of God in an unflattering manner is something I cannot see as glorifying.  (Again, having read the writer’s reasoning, I understand that’s not what he intended to communicate.  But without any other context, that’s what comes across.)

I have to agree with the author on this one.

Who Sets the Standard?

I find it a little ironic that, for all her lamentation about too much emotion in worship, many of the author’s concerns seem to be fueled by her own feelings on the subject, rather than any concrete biblical standards.  I do believe there are standards we can ascertain from Scripture, but I don’t believe these are those standards.  I’ll leave you with this to ponder:

Would the Psalms — the worship songs of Ancient Israel — hold up to these standards?  Can we say they don’t use the Lord’s name?  (Hint: Read Psalm 3 for one example.)  Can we say they aren’t repetitive (See Psalm 118) or brief (See Psalm 117)?  Can we say they aren’t emotional (See Psalm 38) and/or don’t speak of pursuing the Lord as a beloved (See Psalm 42, esp. verse 1)?  Can we say that they never assert that the singer will do something that he can’t, in his own strength, accomplish perfectly?  (See Psalm 34:1)