"Mr. Colson, I Respectfully Disagree"
48 comments | Permalink
In the latest issue of Christianity Today Chuck Colson penned an article entitled Soothing Ourselves to Death. I agree with his lament regarding the trajectory of Christian radio. (Yesterday, for example, I learned from my chipper Christian radio host that God has my picture on his refrigerator!)
But Colson's intro to this meditation is a time when he cracked upon singing "a meaningless ditty" with "zero theological content" called "Draw Me Close to You."
I agree with Sam Storms, who respectfully disagrees with Colson on this one. Sam examines the song in question, saying that while "it isn't lyrically complex or theologically deep," "There isn't a sentiment or syllable in the song that isn't found somewhere in the Psalms as an expression of legitimate, biblical, heartfelt worship."
Read the whole thing.
But Colson's intro to this meditation is a time when he cracked upon singing "a meaningless ditty" with "zero theological content" called "Draw Me Close to You."
I agree with Sam Storms, who respectfully disagrees with Colson on this one. Sam examines the song in question, saying that while "it isn't lyrically complex or theologically deep," "There isn't a sentiment or syllable in the song that isn't found somewhere in the Psalms as an expression of legitimate, biblical, heartfelt worship."
Read the whole thing.
posted by JT at Wednesday, April 05, 2006
48 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm with Colson on this one. Reading the articles but focusing on the song lyrics, this seems to be the epitome of the "God is my girlfriend" song. The psalms make it clear that the psalmist is talking to God or about God--this song neither mentions a name for God nor any of his unique attributes. Contrast that with the Psalms Storms cites--all these make it clear that God is the object of the affection/praise/longing, using language that could not refer to anyone but God. The psalms also strike me as much more specific than the song in question. The psalms are below for reference:
"But for me it is good to be near God" (73:28a). "My soul longs, yes, faints for the courts of the Lord" (84:2a). "I say to the Lord, 'You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you'" (Ps. 16:2). Why? Because "in your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore" (16:11). "As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God" (42:1-2a). "O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water" (63:1). "Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you" (73:25).
Thanks again for the great site, JT!
"Draw Me Close To You" has always been a sort of "joke song" amongst the worship team at my church. The lyrics are terribly subjective. I could sing it to my wife.
But sometimes subjective lyrics are appropriate. Mark Altrogge said once at a conference I attended that, "sometimes the appropriate response to God is simply 'I love you.'"
But while we should never doubt the heart behind such well-intended people who are hoping to serve the church through song, and while we should always recognize evidences of grace even in song writing, noting where and when it is appropriate to be overly subjective, we should always have the goal in song writing to produce objective, truth-centered, gospel-centered, cross-centered songs that accurately portray the reality of what God has done for us.
I was stunned to read the phrase "I learned from my chipper Christian radio host that God has my picture on his refrigerator!" in your post.
The pastor I most recently served under as student minister continually told our congregation this same phrase. In fact, he introduced most Sunday morning service times with it. In fact, now that I think about it, that is a pretty fair representation of his ministry style.
Of course, he is also the one who repeatedly affirmed Joel Osteen to our people.
Needless to say I found it difficult to remain in that context.
I respectfully agree with Charles Colson.
the epitome of the "God is my girlfriend" song.
I hope you're not suggesting that God isn't my girlfriend.
If one is more committed to a systematical theology, than say, the text- it would be easy to agree with Colson. Storms' comments however are insightful, respectful, and Biblical. I would have to agree with Sam Storms as well.
If musical theology is so important to Mr. Colson, I'm not sure why he has to ever be subjected to any he does not find edifying. I find that I can worship God no matter what the song selection is. While it may be true that the songs in question are not as specific as the Psalms, I find myself remembering the Psalms that I have recently read or memorized.
Phil
Does it not say in Revelation 4:8 that the seraphim use "endless repetition " in their worship of God? At Piper’s pastor’s conference a few years back in response to similar criticisms from James Boice he mentioned that he thought there is a value as times in corporate worship of “lingering” over a thought about God. I think he is right. I think the lingering can be abused by many worship pastors who want to feel the rush of being able to manipulate the emotions of their people, but used with careful Holy Spirit discernment it can be very worshipful.
Could it be that some of us men (myself included at times) are so emotionally crippled and cerebral that the thought of singing “Jesus I love you” is hard for us to do? On a similar note, I have also observed this as a gender issue at times. As a former worship pastor I found that sometimes when I looked out upon the congregation when we sang the Matt Redman’s song “Let My Words Be Few” and we got to the line “Jesus, I am so in love with you” the women had an easier time singing it than the men. Not sure what this totally points to, but it may be that as men we have a hard time singing lyrics that are sometimes thought of as romantic in nature to a God we conceive of as primarily masculine.
Also, I think this issue can dance a bit close to legalism if we let it. May we all confess that we have preferences in worship that are extra-biblical and may we surrender those before the cross and pray for our worship leaders and pastors that we could have the right content and emotional response in our worship.
The thing that has always bother me about this song is that it could be sung to my wife, etc. To put this in perspective, I have heard several songs over the years on secular radio that have been romantic, nonsexual, and conveyed roughly the same sentiment as draw me close. I wonder if any of those in favor of "draw me close" would also consent to a worship team that wanted to use secular love songs that conveyed the same thoughts, songs by Creed, Lighthouse, etc., that were written as love songs to women could could be ambiguously applied to Christ.
I wonder if the word God or Jesus was slipped into the song in a couple of place that some of you would think its okay then. I'm guessing no, because the real issue you have is with the genre and how it can be abused with over repetition etc.
Lets face it, Colson wants Hymns, Paulos, having read some of your thought on these matters, I expect its the same for you too.
In my view, a song like this can be used 'as is' if set up properly and not repetitiously pounded into the ground (I do agree with Colson on that score). Reading a similar pslam and then singing this song might make for a good worshipful comination.
See Michael Horton's article: Are Your Hymns Too Spiritual
Another "can of worms" to open-- Is exposing children to very loud noises (i.e., amplifiers cranked up high) tantamount to child abuse during worship services???
The old "I don't like the song b/c it is a 'God is My Girlfriend' song is a red herring.
Those who complain never say anything about a song being a 'God is my spouse song.' Why the negative caricature of 'girlfriend' and not 'wife' or 'husband'? B/c there is precedent for this all over the Bible for such.
Whether it is or not, I do not know, but it sure looks like artistic snobbery disguised as godliness.
What is interesting to me is the common approach of comparing this song, or other worship songs, to the Psalms, with the Psalms being our benchmark, so to speak. I agree with this approach, which leaves me with the question, why not just sing the Psalms? BTW, I do not hold to exclusive psalmody, but the question seems obvious, at least to me.
Just for clarification, I did not mean why not sing only Psalms, but why not add them to the mix if that is not already being done.
Thanks.
Russ,
This is what some have "inclusive psalmody," rather than exclusive psalmody!
Justin
As a worship pastor for a church, I find the picture of a "diet" helpful in planning services.
There are many different elements in a church service that can all be seen within the Scriptures. You see "endless repetition" (Rev. 4:8) and propositional instruction (Ezra 7:10). Examples and descriptions abound, while *pre*scription is conspicuously absent, leaving the planning of worship services (to quote Dr. Piper) "not to our whim or our tradition, but to prayerful, thoughtful, culturally alert, self-critical, Bible-saturated, God-centered, Christ-exalting, reflection driven by a passion to be filled with all the fullness of God. I assume this will be an ongoing process, not a one time effort."
The primary rub I see in Colson's article is the lack of context. Should songs like this characterize ALL of our corporate worship? No one seems to be arguing that.
Is this song ipso facto wrong to sing? Colson seems to say so, and as such, I disagree with him. Some very intimate, personal songs can enhance and express our love for God. I would argue that in an our "age of the individual" we should reduce (not eliminate) and emphasize expressions that are corporate and objective.
I think I would agree more strongly with Chuck if (A) that song was sung amidst a whole host of other songs that lacked any kind of doctrinal truth and (B) he hadn't rudely interrupted the worship service to make his point. I had to go back and read that line a couple more times, and was forced to conclude that he is speaking literally. That seems totally inappropriate.
I agree with -r, Colson was out of line to shout out like that. I can hardly believe it.
That song is fine with me.
I had one teacher tell us that the lyrics to one popular song, "I'll never know how much it cost, to see my sin upon that cross", was in error, via the fact that we in fact do know...it cost alot, Jesus' life! But, it is true that WE (as in we don't get nailed to the cross), do not know that price. Too nit picky.
I heard one Christian rock song that had a chorus, Every night, you're dancing over me, ..". Man, I have no idea what the heck that means.
So much of what passes for corporate worship is actually just a private "me and God" kind of experience--and a fairly feminine one at that. We're so flabby on the doctrine of the Church as the corporate Body of Christ.
And don't blame men for not singing "Jesus, I'm so in love with you." Can you see Martin Luther singing that?
John Frame wrote a book on Contemporary Worship Music. I like Frame coz he's one of the more balanced and open Reformed authors and his book is good. I think Frame would come out in defense of the Vineyard (??) song. I think that song has its place. It wouldn't be great to have all our Christian songs like that, yet if we had none with its qualities, we'd be awefully unbalanced too.
A typo in one of the above comments gave me the idea to coin a new vocabulary word to help us in these types of discussions:
"pslam" - to take cheap shots at a worship song
I'm happy to say and sing that I love Christ. But, there is something really weird about saying I'm "in love" to anyone other than my wife. I'm not "in love" with my dad, but I love him dearly. Draw Me Close is an "in love" type song. My mouth remains closed when it is sung in church, and I believe my love and affection for Christ is not diminished because I don't, and is no less real than one who sings it.
Toobee, I believe that is the real complaint about this song, and I'm happy to find someone honestly express it. In today's secular culture, it is practically impossible to remove the sexual connotation from words like "love," particularly in the form of a modern love ballad.
I mean no offense to you or anyone else when I say this, but I believe it is a weakness of modern evangelicalism to indict any heartfelt expression of love for God on the grounds that it seems ... too feminine. Or, considering we continually assign male gender to God, does it seem homoerotic? Again, that is not the intent of the songwriter, and it is our weakness if we put the onus of a secular interpretation of those words on a song clearly written with the same intent of David with he implored us to "Kiss the Son."
Gaddabout, the culture has co-opted all kinds of good and useful words and phrases ("gay" comes to mind); but I can't think of a time in history when "in love" meant anything other than the feeling between a man and a woman. In what other context could you hear that phrase and not think of that kind of attraction?
As for the feminization of the church, I was thinking more in terms of the Ann Douglas book as mentioned in this quote from Mike Horton:
Revivalism carried this sentimental narcissism into the church itself and "songs of myself" rushed in like a flood. Instead of the focus being on God and his saving work in Christ for sinners, these new hymns centered on me and my personal experience. Men as well as women were supposed to sing these semi-erotic love-songs to another man, Jesus: "He touched me; oh, he touched me! And oh what joy that floods my soul!" In her provocative book, The Feminization of American Culture, feminist writer Ann Douglas actually laments this development in American religion, crediting the new situation to a triumph of Arminianism over Calvinism. One glance at the 19th and 20th century hymns will prove a shift from "Eternal Father Strong To Save," to the romantic rendezvous in a garden with Jesus, to John Wimber's "Spirit Song," there has been a systematic and often unwitting attempt to rid the church's praise of masculine, angular, weighty pieces that can be demanding in both style and content.
The rest of the article is here: http://www.modernreformation.org/mhwhirevmus.htm
Since I like a pretty large range of contemporary music, maybe I'd part company with Mike Horton, but ya know what? With 2,000 years of hymnody to go along with some really superb contemporary songs, I bet we could go a long way before one of the girlfriend songs popped up in the rotation.
gaddabout, interestingly you hit what I think is a weak spot for modern evangelicalism, and that is taking things out of context.
When you refer to "Kiss the Son" which is from Psalm 2:12, and imply that this indicates people like me miss the point of heartfelt expression, it disqualifies your argument. Here is Psalm 2:12 in context.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
That has nothing to do with heartfelt expression (as defined by those who enjoy a song like Draw Me Close), and if anything gives me more confidence in my position.
Is it just me, or did Colson's point about his show lower the credibility of his argument?
I'm not saying that I disagree with the broader point. I do disagree with his analysis of that song, and I think that the commenter who stated that his outburst was "rude" was being very generous. But the paragraph on Breakpoint seemed to show a certain pre-disposition to the argument.
Oh, and by the way, this has nothing to do with Colson. For everyone bent on Colson and his delivery style of the message you're missing the broader point.
Barbara is the one accurately delivering the broader point.
I agree with Colson's point about schmaltzy worship songs.
I don't agree with his little outburst. Although, sinner that I am, I would have laughed (and agreed) had I heard him do it.
I think it's ridiculous to say that one could "take cheap shots at a worship song". It's only a song, man! And like anything else, should and can be scrutinized for it's quality and purpose.
I would love to hear what Steve Camp has to say about this song. Oh wait, I have a pretty good idea...
Mike,
Here's why its not just a song and why people get offended at unfair criticism of it: some have expressed their adoration, love and respect to God through this song. This song has helped some (clearly not all) communicate to God their affection for him. So the criticism goes through the song and to those who embrace it as a meaningful expression of their heart for God.
Marc,
Actually, I'm not a "hymns only" guy. Tim Challies has captured rather well my sentiments about the matter here.
Paulos,
I'm sorry. I thought I remembered reading something you wrote about 4 part harmony as expressed in congregational singing of hymns being the best approach to corporate worship.
Challies position seems much more balanced than the way I remember you expressing your feelings on the matter. Did I get it wrong or have you mellowed ;-)
Bruno,
If it's not just a song, than what is it?
Just because the song has a purpose and evokes an emotional response doesn't mean it's more than a song.
My point is that the song is not Scripture and above critique for appropriateness.
Marc,
I'm not sure if you got it wrong. I never actually laid out a full presentation of my views on congregational music. In brief, I believe hymns mingled with responses and interludes would be great.
I know this is a few days old, but having seen various discussions in different blogs, I feel compelled to add my 2p.
In a sermon on John's gospel, Augustine is making a point against the Pelagians that (as Peter Brown puts in his biography, Augustine of Hippo, p. 374) "knowledge and feeling have become united" only in the "healthy" man; "only such a man is capable of allowing himself to be 'drawn' to act by the sheer irresistible pleasure of the object of his love". Augustine cites Ps 36:7-9,
(7 How precious is your steadfast love, O God!
The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings.
8 They feast on the abundance of your house,
and you give them drink from the river of your delights.
9 For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light do we see light. [ESV]),
then comments:
"Give me a man in love: he knows what I mean. Give me one who yearns; give me one who is hungry; give me one far away in this desert, who is thirsty and sighs for the spring of the Eternal country. Give me that sort of man: he knows what I mean. But if I speak to a cold man, he just does not know what I am talking about..."
Draw me close to you...
Mike,
I'll try answering your question with an illustration: is a love poem to my wife just a poem? If upon giving a poem to my wife, she reads, says "that's nice" and then throws it away, am I going to think nothing of it by saying "well, it is just words on a piece of paper?" Of course not. Because the poem is more than poem, it is an expression of deeply held thoughts and feelings and callous disregard to the poem will lead me to believe she has callous disregard for my heart.
So it is with a song (a poem put to music). Its more than a song in that it is an expression of one's heart.
That's not to say a song can't be critiqued, but it is an explanation to your question as to why the criticism is such a big deal to some.
I remember our friend Russell Moore of SBTS commenting somewhat on this issue when he spoke of the feminization of Christianity. He referred to the hymn "In The Garden":
I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.
Moore thought it unsurprising that men would feel uncomfortable singing this song about Jesus; and he pointed to this as an example of the feminization of Christianity which he argued is a reason so many men in our churches are unenthused about our brand of Christianity, and why women are so disproportionately more active in our churches than men.
Personally I see a difference between being "in love" with someone (romance) and "loving" someone (trust, admiration, respect, willingness to sacrifice). While romance is a biblical picture of the relationship between Christ and His church (corporately), I don't think the same romantic imagery is appropriate when speaking of my individual relationship to God, and so I don't feel comfortable singing about feeling the "warmth of Jesus' embrace."
Pastor Piper said it well in his "Gravity and Gladness" series. We ought to sing heavy theology, but sometimes it's appropriate to just have an emotional release like "I love you Lord." I think we'd all agree that a steady diet of this, and this only, wouldn't do anything profitable in worship. And you're probably aware, there are Christian school chapels and churches where that is exactly the case. My school is one of them.
I must say that I agree with Mr. Colson.
"There isn't a sentiment or syllable in the song that isn't found somewhere in the Psalms as an expression of legitimate, biblical, heartfelt worship."
So why not just stick with the Psalms?
Well, one reason might be because the psalms in many places say to sing a new song to the Lord. For example:
Praise the LORD!
Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise in the assembly of the godly!
Psalm 149:1
I do love it when psalms are sung or adapted, such as Shane and Shane's album of that name.
Is the church the Bride of Christ?
Bruno,
I hear what you're saying, brother. I just think it's an over-reaction to not allow criticizm of this or any other worship song based on sentimentality. You can either agree or disagree, but you can't say "Hey, this song is off limits because it really brings me closer to God."
I'll concede, in the right context this song is okay...but not great. And I hope I don't have to agree that it's great just because someone else thinks it is. If thats the case...then I've also got agree with the Christians that think Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" is a great worship song.
Vitamin Z,
I think you said it well, "Also, I think this issue can dance a bit close to legalism if we let it. May we all confess that we have preferences in worship that are extra-biblical and may we surrender those before the cross and pray for our worship leaders and pastors that we could have the right content and emotional response in our worship."
In my view, I would absolutely oppose a so called worship song that went against doctrine. I wouldn't oppose a song that I didn't like the tune of or didn't think was "godly" enough. I think there are way bigger issues at stake in the church and in this world than if a song is not Biblical enough. I certainly believe we should always be on guard and be using the mirror of God's word to make sure we are never following along blindly and accepting our pastor's/teacher's/leader's words as truth without seeking it ourselves. But I don't think that God is any less worshiped by a song that does not have direct quotes from his Word. In sum, I believe the real issue here is legality and heart attitudes. The most old and dearest hymn can be meaningless if sung with an "unworshipful" heart, and the simplest words or expression can be sung with true fervor and humbleness before God. That's what worship is about isn't it? Praising, thanking, and adoring HIM.
Mike,
I wouldn't even go as far as you. I personally don't like the song. I lead the music here at FBC and I've never put it in the line up and don't plan to. But if others like it... more power to them.
"Stairway to Heaven" may not be a good worship song, but its a great song!
A much better song that brings the same notion of "nearness" is Shane and Shane's "Be Near." compare the two and i think the difference is telling.
I can't see "Draw Me Close" as a "God is my girlfriend song." Why would you sing your to wife "You're all I want / You're all I've ever needed"? If you did such a thing it would be idolatry, no?
Plus there's the obvious titular allusion to John 6. Who ever says to his girlfriend "Draw me close to you"?
I think you make some excellent points, as does Mr. Chuck Colson. Yet I am afraid the issue runs much deeper than theological/intellectual depth. That is itself a result of something much deeper and further from the heart of God.
This topic requires an enormous philosophical discourse which I cannot even begin to highlight. I recommend reading Franky Schaeffer’s “Addicted to Mediocrity” as the opening of a door into a world that is so much larger and more glorious than any contemporary song can even hint at.
Peter Kreeft, a Christian philosopher, says this of our subject: “Those dreary, drippy, little liberal lullabies we endure as contemporary hymns.” I wish that modern Christians would just remove themselves from the bubble of their thought and experience (which has always been the mark of a wise person) and take a look at the history of the church. If they did, they would find that their sentiments (such as “being relevant”, having a “worship experience”, the whole “praise the Lord” bubble-gum-bring-in-the-crowds-by-appealing-to-their-customs thing, and countless other phenomena that Evangelicals take for granted at “Scriptural”) have absolutely no historical basis.
Does it not bother these people that not a single Christian group, nor even a single Christian, whether a great philosopher and theologian like St. Thomas Aquinas, or the simplest little child ever saw worship or Christianity as such a thing for over 1,800 years after Christ? Does it not strike them as odd that the early church fathers (many of these Evangelicals claim to be getting back to the way the early church worshipped) directly and quite vehemently oppose such sentiments?
“Oh! But this is from the Word of God. Those people were just fallible men.” Quite right, but they had Scripture too, and that makes me all the more wary: why are we not interpreting Scripture the way the earliest Christians did? Why are we not interpreting Scripture in the same way as the very people who died with the voices of the Apostles still ringing in their ears?
Another view of history shows a tremendous treasure of the greatest expression and artistic merit the world has ever seen. The arts in Christendom had always been revolutionary, sweeping, profoundly beautiful, and not only life-changing, but humanity-changing. They are testaments of worship that live and thrive to this day.
Can the same be said of the rubbish spewing forth from the Evangelical establishment today? Certainly not. It can be certain that all this “expression” and “passion” which is so evident in these putrid farces will be forgotten long before the next generation comes along.
Please, I beg of you, listen to Johann Sebastian Bach. Do not listen to his music as “classical” or, even worse, “old” music. Much of it he wrote when he was young. Listen to his Mass in B minor, listen to his cantatas, listen to his Passions. Look at his life: his profession was that of a “worship leader” (another modern term) in the Lutheran Church. If you want the best of the best, look no further. If you want an experience or worship, look no further. Bach and the other ancients did not seek an experience when they worshipped. They sought purely and simply to glorify God, and that was the source of their greatness. And here is the thing: from such an atmosphere of self-forgetfulness and complete abandonment to the vision of Christ without a hint of trying to create an experience, they end up in fact imparting the most sensual, glorious, enriching, magnificent, and uplifting experience of worship in all the world. This is true of so much of the art of Christendom. Many of you will not believe me, but let me ask you this: why, then, has it survived the centuries, and why is it so rigorously studied and admired even by atheist professors and artists? Is that not a witness to the lost, and one so much more powerful than some temporary rock fix?
“But what about all those people that get saved from this worship music?” People became Christians in concentration camps because God allowed his grace to shine through the evil that was there. The end does not justify, nor does it explain, the means. Besides, I could walk out onto the street and within a single hour find a at least a handful of people that are not part of the church because of the ridiculous mediocrity that is exhibited and glorified within the Evangelical establishment. What do you bleeding-hearts have to say about that?
Fundamentally, when one thinks of being “relevant” in worship, one betrays the very foundation of what worship is. I think we all agree that worship is about glorifying God. Yet how can we pretend that it is not a conflict of interest when we make worship about more than glorifying God. When we want to start pleasing ourselves and our own sentiments, we kill our ability to glorify God. When we start thinking about ourselves, or our generation, or any of the host of other things we typically worry about, we are placing something else on the throne alongside God, which is idolatry.
Bah…in all this I was barely able to touch on anything even remotely philosophical, but the reasons are out there. Read some history, read some theology and philosophy, and above all, pull your head out of that muck and THINK for one clear minute, and all these things will seem ridiculous.
And once you have reached this point, you will be ready to hear what I heard several years ago. I had to turn off my rock music, and sit in silence for some time, then I heard it…it was quiet at first, but then I opened my ears for the first time and I heard something that roared louder than the waves in a storm, that drowned out the deafening discord of our modern society and heard, to my amazement, a terrible laughter…it was the laughter of heaven. They who see history laid out before them like a table and look at this speck of dust called “modern times”, those immortal souls laughed with such glee and freedom that I could not help but join them, and I laugh to this day.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home