Lest anyone think that my criticism of current trends in Worship Songs comes from my own personal rancor, I offer two links to articles written much better than I myself could (but sadly, without the snotty sarcasm which breaths such life into things).
If you take the time to read them you will recognize several points you may find familiar if you have read my criticism.
With Hearts and Minds and Voices
Christian Research Journal
Volume 23 / Number 2
http://www.equip.org/articles/with-hear ... and-voices
Beyond the Worship Wars: Music and Worship in the 21st Century Evangelical Church
The Theologian: The Internet Journal for Integrated Theology
http://www.theologian.org.uk/pastoralia ... pwars.html
Worship Songs II
Moderators: Pastor Gary, The J2 Mod Squad
-
Full Quiver
- --== J2 ==--
- Posts: 4632
- Joined: June 25th, 2004, 4:34 pm
- Location: USA,Tennessee
- Contact:
generic goes for Bible versions also
Ezekiel 31:8
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. KJV
The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor the fir trees equal its boughs neither were the plane trees like its branches; no tree in the garden of God was its equal in beauty. ESV
The cedars in God’s garden [a]could not match it;
The cypresses [c]could not compare with its boughs,
And the plane trees [d]could not match its branches.
No tree in God’s garden [e]could compare with it in its beauty. [b]NASB
The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the junipers
equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches—
no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. NIV
With the above verses or versions of the verse noted, isn't it obvious that some songs are generic and watered down considering that the most popular versions of the Bible are generic and watered down?
I still love the KJV and use it 99% of the time. These other versions seem to take away from the Lord and point to an it, whatever that is.
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. KJV
The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor the fir trees equal its boughs neither were the plane trees like its branches; no tree in the garden of God was its equal in beauty. ESV
The cedars in God’s garden [a]could not match it;
The cypresses [c]could not compare with its boughs,
And the plane trees [d]could not match its branches.
No tree in God’s garden [e]could compare with it in its beauty. [b]NASB
The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the junipers
equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches—
no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. NIV
With the above verses or versions of the verse noted, isn't it obvious that some songs are generic and watered down considering that the most popular versions of the Bible are generic and watered down?
I still love the KJV and use it 99% of the time. These other versions seem to take away from the Lord and point to an it, whatever that is.
I have piped unto you, and ye have not danced!
-
dolfan
- Established Member
- Posts: 8016
- Joined: March 17th, 2004, 1:25 pm
- Location: USA,Alabama
- Contact:
The cedars in Ezekiel 31:8, et.seq. are compared to the Assyrian in v.3; they are not compared to God. The other translations you mentioned render "Assyrian" as "Assyria", so the personal pronoun "him" is translated as "it" (i.e., Assyria).
Speaking of gardens and generalizations, though, who can question the Person this hymn refers to, although mentioning Him by name only once?
Speaking of gardens and generalizations, though, who can question the Person this hymn refers to, although mentioning Him by name only once?
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.
Refrain
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.
He speaks, and the sound of His voice,
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,
And the melody that He gave to me
Within my heart is ringing.
Refrain
I’d stay in the garden with Him
Though the night around me be falling,
But He bids me go; through the voice of woe
His voice to me is calling.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).
-
dolfan
- Established Member
- Posts: 8016
- Joined: March 17th, 2004, 1:25 pm
- Location: USA,Alabama
- Contact:
Well, looking at the article by John MacArthur... 
.... looks like I'll disagree with him on In the Garden. I promise I didn't know he had cited that song as "banal" or even mentioned it as a case in point. I think he's overlooking the substance of the writer's determination to obey the voice of Jesus' "go" commandment in the face of leaving the experience of close fellowship with Him in isolation. It is a notion that, itself, is missing from much of today's content (which MacArthur laments, justifiably) and I have always found the song to be an expression of the great value of God's voice both in fellowship and in obedience-through-woe. In fact, it is the favorite hymn of my mother-in-law who has always exemplified for me that very quality.
Reading the lyrics brings to my mind the dilemma of Isaiah in his vision -- in that wonderful vision of God's glory, He is in woe, and cleansed and offers Himself to go from there to do the work of God. Is that a stretch? Possibly, but as long as my mind has the capacity to be encouraged by a Christian song and it is directed thereby to the Word, why is it frowned upon?
I understand MacArthur's point, clearly. And, he's right. I just don't see it in this particular song.
.... looks like I'll disagree with him on In the Garden. I promise I didn't know he had cited that song as "banal" or even mentioned it as a case in point. I think he's overlooking the substance of the writer's determination to obey the voice of Jesus' "go" commandment in the face of leaving the experience of close fellowship with Him in isolation. It is a notion that, itself, is missing from much of today's content (which MacArthur laments, justifiably) and I have always found the song to be an expression of the great value of God's voice both in fellowship and in obedience-through-woe. In fact, it is the favorite hymn of my mother-in-law who has always exemplified for me that very quality.
Reading the lyrics brings to my mind the dilemma of Isaiah in his vision -- in that wonderful vision of God's glory, He is in woe, and cleansed and offers Himself to go from there to do the work of God. Is that a stretch? Possibly, but as long as my mind has the capacity to be encouraged by a Christian song and it is directed thereby to the Word, why is it frowned upon?
I understand MacArthur's point, clearly. And, he's right. I just don't see it in this particular song.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).
-
TW
- Established Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: November 4th, 2004, 3:38 pm
- Location: USA,Georgia
- Contact:
FQ,
Context, context,context!
Ezekiel 31:1-7
1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third [month], in the first [day] of the month, [that] the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?
3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.
4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.
7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
"It" becomes a perfectly acceptable pronoun when one realizes that the "it" referred to is the Assyrian King, and by extension Assyria. All it takes is to read the verse in context, with an iota of comprehension, to understand who/what the "it" is.
TW
Context, context,context!
Ezekiel 31:1-7
1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third [month], in the first [day] of the month, [that] the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?
3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.
4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.
7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
"It" becomes a perfectly acceptable pronoun when one realizes that the "it" referred to is the Assyrian King, and by extension Assyria. All it takes is to read the verse in context, with an iota of comprehension, to understand who/what the "it" is.
TW
Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."
My blog - http://theoldman.wordpress.com/
My blog - http://theoldman.wordpress.com/
dolfan wrote:The cedars in Ezekiel 31:8, et.seq. are compared to the Assyrian in v.3; they are not compared to God. The other translations you mentioned render "Assyrian" as "Assyria", so the personal pronoun "him" is translated as "it" (i.e., Assyria).
Speaking of gardens and generalizations, though, who can question the Person this hymn refers to, although mentioning Him by name only once?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.
Refrain
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.
He speaks, and the sound of His voice,
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,
And the melody that He gave to me
Within my heart is ringing.
Refrain
I’d stay in the garden with Him
Though the night around me be falling,
But He bids me go; through the voice of woe
His voice to me is calling.
Actually, I use "In the Garden" as an example of terrible old songs when someone thinks I am just criticising songs because they are new.
The majority of "In the Garden" is about a subjective experience.
It is not about God, but how one person FEELS about God and elevates those feelings to a exclamation of uniqueness "none other has ever known".
It describes a FAntastical relationship with God. What if you are a person, like me, who does not gloss over worship experiences with Holy-God-Speak? When I am alone "in the garden" I do not experience a visit from God on a level no one else has known. I experience fear, despair and loneliness. Crying out to him is most times like talking to a wall....even when I get emotional, or cry, or pray in a prayer language.
"In the Garden" sets a standard of subjective experience. That God relates to people in a certain way that, for many of us, he does not.
And elevates the Singer of that song, the singer that sings believing that that describes their real exerience, to that of braggart: Look How wonderful MY "Relationship" is...if your's isnt as intimate there's something wrong with you.
No. I do not like"In the Garden".
-
dolfan
- Established Member
- Posts: 8016
- Joined: March 17th, 2004, 1:25 pm
- Location: USA,Alabama
- Contact:
So many Psalms do that, too, though. Don't they? Maybe I've picked a terrible old hymn to love, I don't know. Come to think of it, I'm pondering other old faves (Blessed Assurance is one) and putting them to this test of subjectivity.
Or, was David off his rocker? Did he need to qualify his personal expressions of subjective experience of God at every turn??
Imagine if he had.... (dream hands):
The Lord is my shepherd. (Well, not just mine, but you get the point.)
I shall not want. (Sometimes I do really want, but I acknowledge that my want is typically self-driven and without the full perspective of God that I might otherwise enjoy, and thus I really do not want -- at least, I am not behind in any good thing from God because of any failure on His part. I hope it is alright for me to just say it so, however.)
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. (I must stop here and state that I know that I can NOT lie down in green pastures if I take a bloody-blue notion to not lie down, and that if I follow Him it is like lying down in green pastures, which aren't really GREEN in the sense of a meadow but are simply fields where sufficient green to graze and sustain is found, perhaps with some hard and cracking ground, so that the reality is that life is both supplied and difficult together, and so maybe I'm using a bit of poetic overstatement, and you can call me an emotional heap if you like, but I'll have to live with that. "Green pastures!")
He leadeth me beside still waters. (I know. It's all about me, me, me. Still waters. Green pastures. Same criticism. I'll take this one on the chin, but I'd be talking about me if I said that.)
He restoreth my soul. (Ditto. But, He really does. And, by HE, I suppose I should repeat by now that HE means YAHWEH, the God of my fathers.)
See what I mean? If David can write Psalm 23 as personal and subjective, is In the Garden really the kind of song that draws this kind of, I don't know, disdain?? Really? I mean, I've always thought of myself as able to peel through things and all, but for the life of me I just can't see this one.
Or, was David off his rocker? Did he need to qualify his personal expressions of subjective experience of God at every turn??
Imagine if he had.... (dream hands):
The Lord is my shepherd. (Well, not just mine, but you get the point.)
I shall not want. (Sometimes I do really want, but I acknowledge that my want is typically self-driven and without the full perspective of God that I might otherwise enjoy, and thus I really do not want -- at least, I am not behind in any good thing from God because of any failure on His part. I hope it is alright for me to just say it so, however.)
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. (I must stop here and state that I know that I can NOT lie down in green pastures if I take a bloody-blue notion to not lie down, and that if I follow Him it is like lying down in green pastures, which aren't really GREEN in the sense of a meadow but are simply fields where sufficient green to graze and sustain is found, perhaps with some hard and cracking ground, so that the reality is that life is both supplied and difficult together, and so maybe I'm using a bit of poetic overstatement, and you can call me an emotional heap if you like, but I'll have to live with that. "Green pastures!")
He leadeth me beside still waters. (I know. It's all about me, me, me. Still waters. Green pastures. Same criticism. I'll take this one on the chin, but I'd be talking about me if I said that.)
He restoreth my soul. (Ditto. But, He really does. And, by HE, I suppose I should repeat by now that HE means YAHWEH, the God of my fathers.)
See what I mean? If David can write Psalm 23 as personal and subjective, is In the Garden really the kind of song that draws this kind of, I don't know, disdain?? Really? I mean, I've always thought of myself as able to peel through things and all, but for the life of me I just can't see this one.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).
There are sevaral thoughts that I have regarding this:
David was King of Gods People. Do we as everyday Christians enjoy the same relationship????
Does God do everything for us that he did for David??
What of the imprecatory Psalms?
WIll God do the same for us when we pray against our enemies as for David in those Psalms?
If WE place OURSELVES in that same position of relationship are we essentially shoving out Christ who sits as King of Gods people and said that all of Scripture was about him?
Singing about a superlative subjective experience of one individual may motivate another to pursue God, or, after jumping through all the hoops, crying streams of tears and snot, and flagellating ones self such an experience does not manifest, it just may drive away with the idea that such a subjective experience can not be had.
David was King of Gods People. Do we as everyday Christians enjoy the same relationship????
Does God do everything for us that he did for David??
What of the imprecatory Psalms?
WIll God do the same for us when we pray against our enemies as for David in those Psalms?
If WE place OURSELVES in that same position of relationship are we essentially shoving out Christ who sits as King of Gods people and said that all of Scripture was about him?
Singing about a superlative subjective experience of one individual may motivate another to pursue God, or, after jumping through all the hoops, crying streams of tears and snot, and flagellating ones self such an experience does not manifest, it just may drive away with the idea that such a subjective experience can not be had.
-
pastorables
- --== J2 ==--
- Posts: 4748
- Joined: February 9th, 2004, 10:01 am
- Location: USA, Alabama
- Contact:
Gerald wrote:
The majority of "In the Garden" is about a subjective experience.
It is not about God, but how one person FEELS about God and elevates those feelings to a exclamation of uniqueness "none other has ever known".
And this is exactly what I've been trying to say in previous posts. The Bible is full of subjective experience. Does everyone have the same experience with God? Certainly not. We were not created to be "cookie-cutter" Christians.
Nevertheless, the Psalms, Song of Solomon, Jeremiah, Lamentations, all contain specific examples of subjective experience that individuals encountered with God.
David's song is not mine, mine is not David's and/or Jeremiah's cry is not mine, mine is not Jeremiah's, etc. Nonetheless, to say that it's wrong to sing the song of another's experience with God (insert most Christian hymns here) is akin to saying it's wrong to embrace various aspects of scripture as our own.
pa
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."Jim Elliot - Missionary Martyr
-
dolfan
- Established Member
- Posts: 8016
- Joined: March 17th, 2004, 1:25 pm
- Location: USA,Alabama
- Contact:
Gerald wrote:There are sevaral thoughts that I have regarding this:
David was King of Gods People. Do we as everyday Christians enjoy the same relationship????
Does God do everything for us that he did for David??
What of the imprecatory Psalms?
WIll God do the same for us when we pray against our enemies as for David in those Psalms?
If WE place OURSELVES in that same position of relationship are we essentially shoving out Christ who sits as King of Gods people and said that all of Scripture was about him?
Singing about a superlative subjective experience of one individual may motivate another to pursue God, or, after jumping through all the hoops, crying streams of tears and snot, and flagellating ones self such an experience does not manifest, it just may drive away with the idea that such a subjective experience can not be had.
Well, we're not the king of Israel, but I suppose that keeps me from saying that God is my refuge (Ps. 46:1) and I cannot take the admonition to be still and know that He is God (Ps. 46:10), nor can I depend on Psalm 23, for that matter. Jesus and Paul both made much more liberal use of pieces of scripture than that. We're not them, either, and I'm no loosey-goosey guy with the Word, and you know that much. But, I think pushing this idea of David as king and solely situated to say what he did of God to our exclusion flies in the face of the NT statement that these things were written for our learning. Learning is not just a catechism and memorization, it is experiential.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).
pastorables wrote:Gerald wrote:
The majority of "In the Garden" is about a subjective experience.
It is not about God, but how one person FEELS about God and elevates those feelings to a exclamation of uniqueness "none other has ever known".
David's song is not mine, mine is not David's and/or Jeremiah's cry is not mine, mine is not Jeremiah's, etc. Nonetheless, to say that it's wrong to sing the song of another's experience with God (insert most Christian hymns here) is akin to saying it's wrong to embrace various aspects of scripture as our own.
pa
So you are saying, Pastor Ables, that if we take experiences that are NOT ours and LIE to God that they ARE ours, that he will be so IMPRESSED by our LIES that he will BLESS us?
If we are able to take the experiences of Biblical characters and make them about us and make them about OUR experiences of GOD, WHY DO WE ONLY SING THE POSITIVE WONDERFUL "worship" passages?
WHY DO WE NOT SING THE ONES OF DESPAIR??? (A partial answer to that one is modern day Christianity has become more about POSITIVISM that it is about truth)
dolfan wrote:Well, we're not the king of Israel, but I suppose that keeps me from saying that God is my refuge (Ps. 46:1) and I cannot take the admonition to be still and know that He is God (Ps. 46:10), nor can I depend on Psalm 23, for that matter. Jesus and Paul both made much more liberal use of pieces of scripture than that. We're not them, either, and I'm no loosey-goosey guy with the Word, and you know that much. But, I think pushing this idea of David as king and solely situated to say what he did of God to our exclusion flies in the face of the NT statement that these things were written for our learning. Learning is not just a catechism and memorization, it is experiential.
My point is the status of Relationship.
Exodus 33:11 Tells us God spake to Moses face to face, as one does with a friend.
Can I, just because it was the experience of Moses, claim that relationship status as well? sing about how God talks to me face to face, when plainly he does not?
Is it OKAY to LIE about how God relates to you just because you can find a relationship expression in scripture that is wonderful?
Have you ever feared evil? Or did you NOT fear evil, simply because you quoted David in his declaration of Not fearing evil?
HAve you ever been comforted by God? Or have you weathered life at times praying for Death and never having consolation?
BOTH of these are relationship expressions and Gods choice in HOW he related to someone.
If I sing "Great is my God, He makes me know such pain I despise the very day of my birth". Can I sing that as an expression of Worship? I believe, fairly certainly, that I can find a scripture that I can make a little doggerel from and set to music that would echo that. Indeed I have "Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth!"
How about we sing about Isaiah 53:3 about how God has made us of grief, sorrows and the rejection of men.
SO WE FIND AN INTERESTING THING. MODERN worship is all the GOOD cherry picked for us to sing about (whether it's true about us personally or not) and we NEVER SING about the NEGATIVE (especially if it is true).
-
dolfan
- Established Member
- Posts: 8016
- Joined: March 17th, 2004, 1:25 pm
- Location: USA,Alabama
- Contact:
Now, hold on. I am not saying all is light and fancy and delightful. I love those hymns you love. I love the writings of the Puritan fathers that demand holiness, seriousness of thought, sobriety of mind and spirit. There is equal good in the dour and somber Word; it is THE Word of God, not cherry-picked words of God. And, I have no problem viewing our preference for touchy-feely sing-songy repetitive choruses with a jaundiced eye. But, I'm not ready to throw out subjective expression as non-Biblical. David praised and lamented. Jesus praised and lamented. Paul praised and lamented. But, it is the same God that works all. No, we don't sing songs about the things you mention. Maybe someone should. I'm no songwriter. But, I figure if Hank Williams can become a legend singing of heartbreak, then surely someone anointed by God to compose rich, deep, meaningful and Scriptural songs or hymns or psalms or whatever can do so with power. Maybe not with popularity -- being right is certainly no guarantee of being loved.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).
dolfan wrote:Now, hold on. I am not saying all is light and fancy and delightful. I love those hymns you love. I love the writings of the Puritan fathers that demand holiness, seriousness of thought, sobriety of mind and spirit. There is equal good in the dour and somber Word; it is THE Word of God, not cherry-picked words of God. And, I have no problem viewing our preference for touchy-feely sing-songy repetitive choruses with a jaundiced eye. But, I'm not ready to throw out subjective expression as non-Biblical. David praised and lamented. Jesus praised and lamented. Paul praised and lamented. But, it is the same God that works all. No, we don't sing songs about the things you mention. Maybe someone should. I'm no songwriter. But, I figure if Hank Williams can become a legend singing of heartbreak, then surely someone anointed by God to compose rich, deep, meaningful and Scriptural songs or hymns or psalms or whatever can do so with power. Maybe not with popularity -- being right is certainly no guarantee of being loved.
Okay.
HOW EXACTLY is singing about SOMEONE ELSES experience WHICH I MAY or MAY NOT share, considered WORSHIP of GOD?
If I sing about a superlative experience and I am not part of that superlative experience am I trying to heap guilt upon God because he knows that I DON'T have that experience?
IF I sing about a superlative experience I do not have, am I lying?
-
dolfan
- Established Member
- Posts: 8016
- Joined: March 17th, 2004, 1:25 pm
- Location: USA,Alabama
- Contact:
Gerald wrote:
HOW EXACTLY is singing about SOMEONE ELSES experience WHICH I MAY or MAY NOT share, considered WORSHIP of GOD?
If I sing about a superlative experience and I am not part of that superlative experience am I trying to heap guilt upon God because he knows that I DON'T have that experience?
IF I sing about a superlative experience I do not have, am I lying?
To the first question, I'd simply say Psalm 136. Not the writer's experience, a song about someone else's experience, and it is worship of God. If it yields to God's commands, obeys His Word, and exalts Him, it is worship. It is a means and method of ascribing worth to him. That's what worship is -- it is "worth-ship". Actually, far less of it is song than action and thought; yet, without doubt, there is plenty of bible evidence of psalms of worship, i.e., songs of worship. Like Psalm 136.
As for your second question about superlative experiences, all I can tell you is when I sing that way, I'm not trying to heap guilt upon God because I don't have that experience. That's not worship. That's covetousness at worst or self-righteousness at best. What you may do (and you asked the question, I didn't) I cannot say. For sure, neither of us need to worship experiences, superlative or otherwise. God alone is worthy. I know you know that and believe that, too -- that's not a lecture, just a point of agreement.
As far as lying about superlative experiences, I have to say that sometimes I just hush.
The best example I can give from my own life is not one about "superlative experiences", but -- let me just tell it. There's one song that I really, really don't like. It says -- and again, I'm only mentioning this as an example, not to invite a piling on criticism to a certain song since I'll do that enough here -- "We cry freedom from the chains that bind Your children, Freedom from the chains that bind our praise to You....". It goes on to sing about wanting to dance, sing and praise longer or louder "than before", etc. Well, to me, that song is idiotic. I like the tune. I like the chord progression. I detest the lyrics. For a year, and this is no lie, I refused to sing it because of the way a phrase was worded and I actually thought it meant something opposite of what it really is supposed to mean: "Freedom from the chains that bind our praise to you." My brother in law is the music minister. I even asked him once, "what does that even mean?". He looked at me like I had a horn growing out of my head.
But, I was serious. I thought, by its grammar, that somehow the singer thought some "chain" was binding praise TO God. I had always thought, "Well, if it is something that fastens my praise toward God, shouldn't I WANT that? I want to be bound to God. Why do I want freedom from that?" Now, maybe I'm just stupid, but that's the way I read that. I even told my wife, repeatedly, the sentence was nonsense. Then, my brother in law said, "It means if your praise to God is bound, you want freedom from that."
Oh. Ok.
Still, an insipid song, in my opinion. And, bad grammar. If I'd written it, it would say, "Freedom from the chains that bind me from praising You." Too many syllables maybe.
My praise to God is not bound. Yours isn't, either, by the way. There are no chains that hold your prayers. There may be sins that hinder, there may be disobedience that hinders, there may be disbelief that makes your prayers (or mine or anyone's) an abomination, but no chains that bind. Crying "freedom" certainly isn't going to change that. Not even Mel Gibson as William Wallace can say "freedom" with enough volume and passion to constitute repentance and faith.
I perceived a fakeness about that song -- not one that I think most people are aware of when they sing it because I tend to pull words apart and parse them and mull them over and most people just go with it. But, because of that, I keep my mouth shut, or I may sometimes sing parts that I find enjoyable enough.
What I won't do, though, is stand with my arms folded and be all "you stupid people don't even know what it is you're singing" about it. What I am doing, in my own small way, is using the opportunity God has given me through the discipleship ministry He has allowed me to serve in as an avenue toward more truly biblical thinking.
But, boy, does that zoom way, way past song lyrics in a hurry!
I don't know if I have satisfactorily answered anything you asked. That's the best I got on those questions.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).
Return to “Jude 2 General Discussion Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests
![[amer-ribbon90.gif]](/images/amer-ribbon90.gif "Remember our veterans and troops currently serving today.")