We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Sunday, December 2, 2012

More Worship Songs Compared


I’ve been following the comment string on a blog post about problems at IHOP - that bastion of aberrant and false teaching and false prophets (referred to in my last “Random Apostasies and Heresies” post). Someone posted the lyrics to two “worship” songs by Misty Edwards, who was identified as “IHOP’s supreme musician,” and, while reading them, I was just shaking my head at what was passing for “Christian” songs.

I was going to write a post about these two songs, but while singing in church today my mind was immediately drawn to the difference between what we were singing and what Misty Edwards promotes. It was such a stark contrast that I felt the need to compare them.


Now, be aware that I am only posting lyrics that I copied from the other site, and am trusting accuracy to the person posting them there. I also must note that the poster said that these lyrics are “taken from” the whole songs, while he was demonstrating a problem.

“I will waste my life” 

For I am in love with you,
and there is no cost.
I am in love with you,
and there is no loss.
I am in love with you,
I want to take your name.
I am in love with you,
I want to cling to you, Jesus,
Just let me cling to you, Jesus.
I say goodbye to my father, my mother,
I turn my back on every other lover, and I
Press on, yes I press on.
I say goodbye to my father, my mother,
I turn my back on every other lover, and I press on, yes I press on.
 
“What Only You can Do”

I’ll take Your Word in my hand
And then I’ll give You time
To come and melt me
I can’t even love You unless You call my name
I can’t even worship unless You anoint my heart, God
I can’t even want You unless You want me first
Come fan the flame, oh
Come fan the flame, yeah

The first song sounds like something one would sing to a boyfriend, i.e, “I want to take your name” would be saying she wants to marry him. At any rate both these are “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs, treating Jesus as if he were a lover rather than Lord and God.

Now, let’s look at the song we were singing when I thought about the contrast. The lyrics are from the 4th century - you know, before Roman Catholicism corrupted things. The tune itself is from the 13th century.

“Of the Father’s Love Begotten”

Of the Father’s love begotten,
Ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the source, the Ending He
Of the things that are, that have been,
And that future years shall see,
Evermore and evermore.

O ye heights of heav’n, adore Him;
Angel hosts, His praises sing;
Pow’rs, dominions, bow before Him
And extol our God and King;
Let no tongue on earth be silent;
Every voice in concert ring,
Evermore and evermore.

Christ, to Thee with God the Father,
And, O Holy Ghost, to Thee,
Hymn and chant and high thanksgiving,
And unwearied praises be:
Honor, glory, and dominion
And eternal victory,
Evermore and evermore
 
I think it should go without saying that the songs from IHOP are not even useful for private devotion, let alone in the assembly, while the last song is useful for both.

And that is a problem with much of what passes for “Christian” music nowadays. I realize some of the “old” stuff is problematic, but if I were to hazard a guess I’d say 90% of the older songs are good while 90% of the newer ones are not! While most of the older songs were focused on the Lord, the majority of today’s songs are focused on self - and way too many of them are of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” variety!

I really, truly wish Christians would be more discerning as to the music they choose, especially those in leadership positions! Filling our heads with garbage does nothing to foster the worship of God.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr. Chatfield,
Thank you for your endeavor to proclaim the truth.
Hoped you would have time to watch this video, Indiana
Bible College's rendition of "Revelation Song", and give a review of it. Thanks in advance.
God bless,
Brian- monteinlv@yahoo.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P34RvexH18

Steve Bricker said...

Just this past year, I became familiar with “Of the Father’s Love Begotten.” What a great hymn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

We sang "Of the Father's Love Begotten" back in our Lutheran days. They sing a lot of old stuff.

ali said...

The first two songs appear to have an "I" problem, the second two glorify God with no mention of "I"

But then, we are in the "me/I" generation even in what is being called the church.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Anonymous,

I'm sorry for the delay in my response - this must have gotten accidentally deleted from my e-mail notice, and I just noticed this morning on my blogger dashboard that I had this comment waiting!

I watched the video, and really wished someone had put up the lyrics because I found them difficult to make out. So I went and searched them out and the lyrics are okay.

My problem with the video is I couldn't tell if this was a concert someplace or a worship service. If it is the latter, then I have to ask why we have such a stage show with all the performers, etc so as to make it LOOK like a concert.

Anonymous said...

Most of what you write should go without saying. Period
'take Your Name", means to become a Christian, for starters.

Your posts evidence a discernable lack of The Spirit's leading and teaching. Juvenile and divisive.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Anonymous 12/4,

I’m not sure what your first sentence means. Do you mean most of what I write on this blog “should go without saying”? If that is the case, I would agree that this blog should be totally unnecessary if people who claim to be Christians would just read the Bible and exercise discernment.

As for “take your name,” yes, it SHOULD mean taking the name of Christ. But with those lyrics it could mean as a wife. The point is that this song is a “Jesus is my boyfriend” type of garbage. It is vacuous of any doctrine and all about emotions.

You made a charge that my posts “evidence a discernable lack of the Spirit’s leading and teaching.” I would suggest they are evidence of the exact opposite, and the people who are lacking in such discernment are those who think these types of songs are right and proper for worship. In fact, I suggest that anyone involved with IHOP shows a serious lack of discernment in spiritual matters, since IHOP is rife with aberrant and false teachings.

Explain how my posts are “juvenile.” Explain how they are “divisive.” If you make charges like these, then at least give evidence to substantiate them.

I will agree my blog is intended to be divisive, in that it is intended to divide error from truth.

Levi Felton said...

I'm interested in this blog's perspective for parts that I agree with and some parts that I do not.

Concerning worship, shouldn't we be emotional in our praise of Him? I think so. I feel that to love God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind inherently involves our emotions, as well. I think you probably agree with that, too, right? We just have differing opinions on what that looks like.

I look at football fans at a football game and can clearly see how their activities could very easily be described as worship. Others may disagree (and surely will) but, by and large, most Christians in America would staunchly deny that their lack of emotions during their traditional Sunday morning worship is problematic in their relationship with God. While, those same Christians will spend their emotional energy virtually everywhere BUT in worship to God.

Please, don't assume that I'm counting you amongst these in which I speak. I'm merely pointing out a clear resistance to emotionally driven worship in churches these days. I think that, all too often, this resistance is founded on good intentions. Those being: trying to differentiate worship of God with worship of oneself.

While I do agree with you that these lyrics COULD be interpreted to be talking TO someone other than God in the first song, I disagree that either you or I should be negatively labeling the song, musicians, church members, or church because of this possibility.

Putting our perceptions and our own experienced-driven expectations aside for a moment, let us consider something. If a person loved God with all of their heart, soul, strength and mind and were worshiping Him as if no one else were around, what might that look like? Must it look the same for each individual? What might be the words being sung?

The Bible is clear that believers are accepted as the children of God. More than that, the church is the bride of Christ. These are extremely and intimately relational positions. And, we can't have meaningful relationships void of true emotions. Our worship shouldn't be void of them either.

To label someone's worship "garbage" is strong. You, yourself, admitted that the lyrics "could mean as a wife". But, by stating that it's only a possibility inherently means that it's also a possibility that they didn't mean that.

My point is that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss someone's worship as garbage just because it looks and sounds different than our worship.

Now, had the lyrics been, "raise me up and make me equal with you" or "thanks for making me all powerful" or "because of your salvation, I don't need you anymore" or something to that effect, I would be trying to call others away from the blasphemy, as well. However, if a song sung in worship is following Matthew 19:29 almost to the letter, you won't find me in opposition to it.

Anonymous said...

Hi Glen, yes, those ARE the true lyrics to those songs by Misty Edwards. Here is I Will Waste My Life:http://youtu.be/Aqy3LljAdA4

What Only YOu Can Do:http://youtu.be/WcRas-SS0GU

And wanted to add these, while these clips are not the "lovesick" love song, they are VERY disturbing! If you can bare watching both clips, you will see those poor kids manifesting kundalini (shaking etc.) and then Mike Bickle comes out and starts "prophesying" midway it looks evil and twisted!

Part1: http://youtu.be/lJP4Z6G0ofw

Part2: http://youtu.be/lfsuLouTFl8

Anonymous said...

Mr. Chatfield,
Thank you for your reply to 'review of Revelation song.'
I appreciate your thoughts on these things and look forward to future articles.

God bless you,
Brian

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hi Sarah,

Thank you for those links. Those last two look more like a rock concert than a worship service. And actually, I felt like I was watching cult members going into altered states of consciousness!

I couldn't watch much more than half-way with either one of them; it was sad watching people being so deceived.

Mike Bickle is a false prophet, let alone a false teacher. IHOP is leading too many of our youth into spiritual bondage.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Levi, 



I have no problem at all with emotions in worship. We should certainly be emotional about God. But the type of worship wherein the emotions are all about feeling good, feeling romantic or getting worked up into a virtual altered state of consciousness is certainly not directed at God. When you get to “emotion-driven” worship, you have the nonsense you find in the various false revivals. You may as well be at a rock concert idolizing the performers.



I agree with what you say about sports - too many people make sports virtually their god!

I didn’t “negatively label” any musician or church member because of the lyrics. I addressed only the lyrics. My labeling IHOP as problematic was not in regard to these songs either - they are problematic in general.



There is no excuse for the “Jesus is my boyfriend” type songs as the first one is. They trivialize Christ, make him a lover rather than Lord and Savior. Looking at that first song, the idea of being “in love” is a romantic idea. We love God, we love Christ, but I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where we are “in love” with God/Jesus. When you start with being “in love” with Jesus, then taking his name seems more like marriage than identifying with him. 



The “Bridal paradigm” as taught by many (and apparently by Bickle) makes the individual the bride of Christ rather than the Church as his bride. Using Song Of Solomon allegorized directly affects this belief because of the sensuality of the SoS, leading to “Jesus is my boyfriend” mentality. The lyrics of the first song says she turns her “back on every other lover,” which definitely is saying that Jesus is her lover. (By the way, proper marriage does have the couple leaving father and mother, regardless of the possible reference to Matthew 19:29, so it adds to the marriage allegory.)



When someone’s worship trivializes God/Christ into something other than as Lord and Savior, then it is not unfair to call it “garbage.” Just like all false teaching can be called “garbage.” Because songs of the “Jesus is my lover/boyfriend” type are indeed false teaching.



By the way, I looked at your profile and I have to make a public comment so that those reading this site who may also look at your profile may be alerted. You have a favorite book by Rick Joyner. The book is false teaching by a false teacher who has been exposed by numerous apologetics ministries. I will link to just one:
http://www.letusreason.org/BookR4.htm 
You also have as a favorite book one by John Eldridge. The majority of Eldridge’s teachings are based on secular psychobabble, and “Wild at Heart” is one of the worst. Midwest Christian Outreach did an excellent review titled, “Wildly Unbiblical.”
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2003/03sum.pdf
I highly recommend you read these reviews and perhaps reconsider those books and authors.

Oh, I do want to make one more point about "emotion-driven worship"---

Worship must first be rational; that is, based on reason. Rational beliefs, rational worship will lead to the proper emotions.

Emotion-driven worship is what you will find in most cults. They don't have rational reasons for their faith - they have "burning in the bosom."

Levi Felton said...

So emotions are alright to have while worshipping God, but not too much? Who draws that line? You seem to know where that line is since you have no trouble calling someone's worhip of God "nonsense" and "garbage." Since you didn't aptly point that line out, I'm assuming that for you the line is where your comfort level is surpassed.

You keep labeling the song a "Jesus is my boyfriend" song because clearly you have trouble with the level of intimacy the song portrays. Despite what you say, one can't trivialize Jesus in a song. A song is a song and there is no way one could fully describe Jesus in one. To claim trivialization as a damning quality would damn all songs. We can only touch on aspects of God in a song. This one touches on the relational side of Jesus.

The whole "love"/"in love" argument is using modern semantics. Clearly we are to "go with" the Holy Spirit, but not in the sense in which today's 13 year-olds refer. You assume that these people are starting with being "in love" but what do you know? I would argue that the majority of the people worshipping to this song aren't brand new Christians at all, but rather ones who have grown up in church most of their lives. At least, that's been my experience. But, then again, what do I know?

Again, with the "Jesus is her lover" semantics argument? Yes, 'lover' can mean a relationship of a sexual nature. I'm not denying that. But, to claim that it means that exclusively is incorrect. I take the song to mean that she doesn't require love from anyone else but Jesus. She doesn't require it because his love is fulfilling and not at all lacking.

Concerning the books I read in like 2006 or something, I won't defend. The authors can defend themselves. At the time that I read them, I liked them. I started my blog roughly the same time and thus they would up in my "favorite books" on my blog profile. I haven't done anything with my profile since then.

I'm not sure how to respond to your "Worship must first be rational" statement. I agree that in order to worship God we must first know that He is real, who He is, what He has done, and where we fit in to Him relationally. Sure, I'd agree that it starts rationally. I'd disagree that that's where it ends. And, I'd certainly make every effort not to find myself on the judging end by keeping my false-teacher-pointer-finger properly holstered.

You claim that you have rightly discerned good from bad, holy from evil, but I find your confidence to be arrogant and your arguments to be based more on what "feels comfortable/uncomfortable" to you rather than using God's Word to back up your statements. If you want to call something out as false teaching or someone out as a false teacher, then the burden of proof is on you, or maybe better stated as: you presenting an argument with God's Word.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Levi,

You seem to have added much to what I actually said and then attacked what I didn’t say. That’s called a straw man logic fallacy.

I never said anything about “how much” emotion is okay - that is not a quantifiable thing. What I said was that worship must first be rational, and any emotions expressed must be based on what is rational. Emotions for emotion sake is what “emotion-driven” worship is about; it is what is used much by the cults.

I never stated anyone’s worship was “garbage” or “nonsense,” so you again hit a straw man. I stated the particular songs in question were garbage and nonsense for the reasons fully explained.

I call them “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs because the implication is that he is more of a boyfriend/lover than he is Lord, God, and Savior. These songs, usually by women, make our relationship with Christ to be romantic. This is unbiblical. Yes, I am always uncomfortable with trivialization and blasphemy of God. Most discerning people are.

The “whole love/in love” argument is NOT about semantics - it is about the English language and “in love” has always been associated with romance. You want to justify the use of this phrase - as well as the word “lover” - towards Christ because it fits with your demonstrated theology (demonstrated on your blog), which is of the charismatic bent.

If you no longer consider those books among your favorites, then perhaps you should remove them from your blog so people aren’t mislead into reading false teaching.

If I call someone out as a false teacher, I always provide the biblical reasons. If I calls something false teachings, I also provide the biblical reasons. You will see that on this blog with every post. And we are certainly called as Christians to judge false teachings and the problem is too many people keep their “fingers” holstered for fear of stepping on toes rather than protecting the flock.

You say that my confidence is “arrogant” - would you also call Paul’s confidence in the truth “arrogant”?

I think we’ve come to the end of our discussion: you are more intent on defending the “Jesus is my boyfriend/lover” theme than objectively looking at the trivialization and blasphemous teaching, which is all part and parcel of the false teachings of IHOP. I cannot defend things that are just for stirring the emotions and making people feel good. That is not what worship is about.

Anonymous said...

so now you rate yourself up there with The Apostle Paul...just a little prideful...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for the great example of a straw man.

The context was "confidence in the truth." And in that regard, if one is going to call my confidence in the truth "arrogant", then one would have to also call Paul's confidence in the truth "arrogant." The point is that it is NOT arrogant to be confident in the truth.

And, by the way, attacking me as being "arrogant" is an ad hominem fallacy.

Levi Felton said...

You misunderstand an ad hominem argument. I'm not claiming that you are arrogant therefore your arguments are false. I'm saying that your confidence is arrogant because it's substantiated completely in your own wisdom, experience, and opinion rather than the Word of God and the truth of scripture. Ultimately, you wrote a blog that called a church a "bastion of abberant and false teaching and false prophets" and not once cited scripture to back your claims. Then, you have the audacity to claim that YOU'RE being attacked. What a joke.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Levi,
Read my previous comment to Anonymous in regard to being "arrogant."

As for my statement about IHOP, I have given plenty of biblical evidence against that establishment and their teachers in other articles. I have either personally pointed out problems or linked to sites which have done more in-depth research.

IHOP has been a target of virtually every apologetics ministry. The have "prophets" who are never correct in their prophecies, they have "apostles" who do not fulfill the biblical definition, they teach the totally unbiblical and aberrant Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare, and are promotes of the New Apostolic Reformation - another false and unbiblical idea. Anyone interested in researching just these few teachings will find they are totally incompatible with Christian teachings.

My arguments are not based on personal feelings, etc as you claim - they are all based on Scripture.

The "Joke" is any Christian who seeks to defend such a place as IHOP and the type of teachings they espouse. Such people demonstrate a lack of discernment.

Levi Felton said...

I appreciate you bringing up the strawman argument and bringing logical fallacies into the subject matter of this discussion. By all means. I'll play.

How about unsubstantiated assumption? You claim to have a problem with "the type of worship wherein the emotions are all about feeling good". But, you are assuming a reason for someone else's worship. Neither the song's lyrics nor the singer ever, at least where I can find, claimed that the worship was ABOUT feeling good. If you can find a quote that proves otherwise, I'd stand corrected. However, it's clear that you have judged what the song is about. To deny that is simply to lie. You have labeled the song several times, claimed to know the reason, and demonized the ones singing it likening them to cult members. Anyone who has read this blog and its comments can see that. You claim that it's from God-given discernment. But, I disagree. I would impress upon you to look for some good lessons on the differences between discernment and judgement, conviction and condemnation.

I'm not sure you understand completely what a straw man argument is. You said, "I never stated anyone’s worship was 'garbage' or 'nonsense' ... I stated the particular songs in question were garbage and nonsense ..." How can you disconnect somone's written and sung worship song with their worship? The simple and truthful answer is that you cannot. Yes, you did call someone's worship 'garbage' and 'nonsense'.

You claim that I am adding to what you said and arguing what I'm adding, but it's not true. You're backpedaling and trying to defend your judgements. You're adding to what the songs are and then arguing what you're adding. You claim that you have rightly labeled this song for it's "implication that He is more of a boyfriend/lover than He is Lord" however, it never makes this statement nor "implies" it as you so claim. You added that. The song rightly recognizes Jesus as a lover of us. For God so loved the world... I'm sorry that you're too uncomfortable to say the word 'lover'. But, you're wrong to base your arguments off of your comfort level and then attest them to be God-given discernment. You, sir, are playing a dangerous game.

"is NOT about semantics - it is about the English language" - Glenn. You're funny. Perhaps you should look up the word 'semantics'. Again, your comfort level is not a valid litmus test to the true nature of God's love for us nor what is acceptable expression of our love for Him. God's Word is our litmus test. Had you used a biblical argument here rather than unbacked opinions, something worthwhile may have been added to the conversation.

You make more assumptions in your arguments than I can keep up with. The reason I mentioned keeping my 'false-teacher-pointer-finger' holstered wasn't out of fear of man, but fear of God. The Pharisees were really good at waving theirs around, mostly at our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. They didn't understand His teachings on love and law and how they work together. They were stuck on law and their interpretation of its purpose and nature. I'm fairly certain that we are in agreement when it comes to them. Yes, there is a place for calling false teachings out and false teachers out. I have done my fair share. But, my confidence is not in myself nor in my so-called discernment. My confidence is in Him and in His wisdom and guidance. I lean not on my own understanding but I trust in Him for He makes my paths straight.

(Cont.)

Levi Felton said...

Cont. From previous comment

You missed Anonymous' point. When I said that I find your confidence to be arrogant, it's certainly not because I recognized your confidence to be in the Truth. Anonymous' correctly pointed out that your argument by question was purposefully directed to liken your confidence with the confidence of which Paul wrote about. But, if you would rather defend this position by claiming that you weren't likening the two and that you weren't making an argument by question, then all that's left is for me to do is answer your supposed genuine (not rhetorical) question. My answer: No, I wouldn't call Paul's confidence in the Truth to be arrogant. However, yes, everyone can agree that your question was, in fact, an argument by rhetorical question and that it was, in fact, an attempt to like your confidence to Paul's confidence.

You sum up your last argument by saying that I'm intent on defending the label you gave a worship song rather than "objectively" looking at the supposed false teachings of IHOP. I guess you think that you're being objective and I'm being subjective? I would completely agree with you on this case. I'm subject to the Truth of scripture and everything that I look at, I will do my best to look at subjectively through the lens of the Word of God. I will make every effort to never remove myself or my thinking from His wisdom lest I find myself outside His Truth.

On that note: I challenge you to read Matthew 19:29 and re-read the lyrics to "I will waste my life" and explain how the lyrics are so unbiblical, as you claim, but have yet to biblically defend.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Levi,

You totally missed what was stated by me and made it into something it was not.
When I spoke of confidence in truth, I was not referring to any passage by Paul. I was making a point that when one makes a truth claim, they have confidence in that truth. It is not arrogant to make a truth claim. By analogy I was pointing out that Paul made truth claims and had confidence that he was correct in such claims. Therefore, to call someone arrogant for having confidence in their truth claim, you’d have to include Paul as being arrogant in order to be consistent. I thought that was very easy to understand.

Again, stating that someone’s song is problematic does not say anything about their overall worship. Their worship is what is in their heart and I can’t read what is in people’s hearts.

I criticized teachings and behavior. The songs discussed are in the context of “worship” at IHOP. The behavior at IHOP has very resemblance to worship, and appears to be self-focussed and entertainment oriented. I find it difficult to believe any objective observer could come to another conclusion.

But, in the context of IHOP’s teachings of the bridal paradigm, which makes Christ the bridegroom of the individual and not the Church, songs such as these are indeed reflecting a romantic relationship with Jesus rather than a Lord and Savior relationship. Apologist Keith Gibson, director of the Kansas City branch of Apologetics Resource Center, has demonstrated that the bridal paradigm portrays a “lovesick Jesus” and forces even men to worship in a feminized way. The “call” at IHOP has included marriage ceremonies to Jesus. In the context of the teachings at IHOP, these songs portray a romantic relationship. If one was to replace the name of Jesus in that first song with any other name, there would be no question about it being a romantic love song, regardless of the use of words found in Matt. 19:29. And, contrary to your charge, I have added NOTHING to the songs.

When someone makes a charge of “semantics” it tends to be about playing word games. My point is that the plain understanding to the term “in love with” would be understood as being romantic by the average person (and I’d guess the majority of the English-speaking population would understand it that way), as would the term “lover.” You called it a problem of “semantics” so as to marginalize my argument. But by using those terms the author of the lyrics projected the idea of a romantic relationship.

Oh, and I love how those who don’t like false teachings being exposed immediately pull out the Pharisee card. My response is here;
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/Pharisee

And, by the way, I would claim for myself this statement made by you, except to change one word:
I'm subject to the Truth of scripture and everything that I look at, I will do my best to look at objectively through the lens of the Word of God. I will make every effort to never remove myself or my thinking from His wisdom lest I find myself outside His Truth.