This is not something I relish attacking, but I was listening to this song on the radio the other day and decided I would write a critique. My purpose is not to discourage any who love the song, but only to pause to examine a few possible issues with modern worship music as expressed by this song. Here is the full set of lyrics:
What is this love that won't relent
That's calling out with heaven's breath
Who is reaching wide to save our souls?
Only you, oh oh oh oh oh oh
That's calling out with heaven's breath
Who is reaching wide to save our souls?
Only you, oh oh oh oh oh oh
What is this grace that makes no sense
That we could never recompense
Who gives us all a second chance?
Only you, only you, only you
That we could never recompense
Who gives us all a second chance?
Only you, only you, only you
There is no one like our god
There is no one like our god
There is no other god who can save
There is no one like our god
There is no one like our god
There is no other god who can save
There is no one like our god
Who hung the stars upon the night
And showed the sun how bright to shine
Who shaped the world within his hands?
Only you, oh oh oh oh oh oh
And showed the sun how bright to shine
Who shaped the world within his hands?
Only you, oh oh oh oh oh oh
oh oh oh
Who set the sky upon the hills
And told the waters to be still
Who spoke to form the universe
Only you, only you, only you
Who set the sky upon the hills
And told the waters to be still
Who spoke to form the universe
Only you, only you, only you
There is no one like our god
There is no one like our god
There is no other god who can save
There is no one like our god, no
There is no one like our god
There is no other god who can save
There is no one like our god
There is no one like our god
There is no other god who can save
There is no one like our god, no
There is no one like our god
There is no other god who can save
There is no one like our god
Here are a few points of analysis:
1. The repeated phrase "there is no one like our God" leads one to ask the why question. Why is there no one like our (The Christian) God? And the answer, according to the various lyrics, is plain. He is a mighty creator and loves us so much that He gives us grace. What is grace? It is the offer of a second chance. That is why God is like none other!
As to the praise of God's creative power I find little fault, but that is not the heart of the song. It is trying to celebrate the "grace that makes no sense," and then goes on to make sense of that grace by suggesting that it is love for all and second chances for all. So, the grace of God is reduced to colloquial "do over" language. More than that, we are told that only God gives "do overs." Can one speak of the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of undeserving sinners as a "do over?" Perhaps, but to do so surely cheapens the idea that the grace of God makes Him like none other. Parents give "do overs." Governments give "do overs." Getting a second chance at a career or a relationship or a task is common.
Perhaps I'm being too hard on the writer, but to suggest that my accumulated sins being placed upon the shoulders of my willing savior, in order that the guilt and punishments would go to him and not to me, is something like God saying, "Ah, don't worry, I'm going to give you another chance to get it right," is just silly, even offensive to the true meaning of the gospel. But it feels good! It feels good to people for them to think that God looks the other way and lets us have another go at it. It is something that we can control. In fact, a "second chance" is the reacquisition of control after having lost it. The true gospel is a gift to those that never had control and never will! The true gospel really is all about the fact that God cannot give second chances to sinful people, and that is why they required something foreign--namely, one who is truly righteous. Any second chance we are given is only because one got it right the first time and it is in His righteousness alone that we stand! In other words, because our sin is so serious, He was given no second chance on the cross!
My issue with the second chance language is that it is deeply misleading without a real theology of the incarnation and the cross, both of which are utterly absent from this song that hopes to celebrate the doctrine of salvation. Curiously, the language of second chance salvation is far more consistent with Islam, if one wants to evaluate the logic of its theology against the logic of Christianity. So, Muslims would love this song! You have power and second chances as a basis for worship. Perfect Muslim God to celebrate.
2. The deeper point is that the song is simple, to the point of being childish both lyrically and musically. It is a blatant appeal to emotion with it's stunningly voluminous repetition and with its lack of any theological depth. It's emphasis upon love and the use of the passage, again repeated, that "nothing will separate us from God's love," emphasizes this preoccupation with emotional experience. But again, the reason we are to feel so drawn to God's love, the reason His love is unique in the world, is because we get do overs.
3. It should also be noted that many at the forefront of the evangelical worship movement are the first to complain about "rote liturgical repetition" in older forms of worship. And yet in this song, as well as in many others, we encounter the most droning and theological dull repetition. And it would be nice if these kinds of lyrics were rare, but it seems to be everywhere. The same kinds of songs are repeated constantly. How many times are we going to hear Oceans by Hillsong in evangelical churches constantly boasting of spontaneity and variety and rebellion against the liturgical? I'm not necessarily against them choosing to be liturgical, but surely it makes little sense to complain about others repeating the Nicene Creed while you repeat Oceans 87 times a year.
4. Finally, a word about the triumph of general pietism (emotion driven religion). Most of the academic pietists I encountered were my Fuller seminary professors. They loved to point out to people in theological studies that the purpose of studying theology was not knowledge but affection and action. To study with an end to study was to be an unfaithful witness. To seek knowledge of God for its own sake was to embrace the life of the pharisee. Of course, that wasn't phariseeism! Phariseeism was precisely not studying God as an end but as a means to different ends than the pietist's ends.
Note well that these same professors had little criticism (none that I recall) for the pietist. Think of the average worshipper, singing the song above during a worship service, crying and feeling and then acting on his faith. Why is it assumed that he is far nearer to heaven than an unemotional theologian and requires little instruction or criticism?
Surely it is the case that neither is acceptable. One should not be a pietist, and one should not be a pharisee. But I wonder which error is the more common in church worship today? When was the last time you heard a worship band accused of preying upon the theological patience of the audience because the lyrics made too high a cognitive demand? When was the last time you were called upon in Church to worship God with your mind?
No comments:
Post a Comment