No contemporary Christian song garners as much criticism as the Cory Asbury song "Reckless Love" where we find this line: "Oh the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God. Oh it chases me down, fights til I'm found, leaves the 99." The complaint is that God is not reckless and so this phrase is not doctrinally sound. Putting any bias for or against Bethel to the side, it should be obvious that the lyric is not to be taken literally, but is used in an analogous way to point out the persistence of God's love; something that is doctrinally sound and very biblical.
Yet the out-lash against this song is harsh. Sure, there is a lot of room for criticism of the song and of contemporary Christian music in general. I don't think critique and arguing are bad. They can help refine us, root out error, and bring us back into balance with scripture. I don't particularly like the song or the line, but, the criticism of the "reckless love" analogy is not legit. Figurative language is a common and good component of communication, but it exists simultaneously with the expectation that the recipient has the thinking skills to accurately interpret the true meaning of the message.
Those who demand literal doctrinal statements in songs would also condemn Paul for writing, "...the Foolishness of God is wiser than men." Did Paul mean that God has foolishness? No. He was simply making an analogy. He was using figurative language to make his point that God chose the Gospel to save humanity, something prideful Greek philosophers and idolators could not figure out- something they considered foolish. Did Jesus literally want his disciples to cut off their hands and gouge out their eyes? If so, all of the disciples were disobedient. Did Peter really think we wear tunics in our mind? Come on.
I find this same sort of problem with very zealous young Christians today- an emphasis on right doctrine coupled with a lack of ability to reason, criticism of christian art without critical thinking, and demand for spoon feeding when we are called to prepare our own meals. Yes, the decline of the West and the rotting out of churches are troubling, but forceful resistance is not helpful if it is dull in intellect and misdirected. And I'm not talking about book knowledge. I'm talking about the ability to analyze, understand, and communicate.
Precision in theology is important, particularly over ideas that scripture takes very seriously. A read through Galatians would convince any reader that salvation by faith is a massively important issue. I would not want to be on the other end of statements like "stood condemned," "severed from Christ," or "fallen from grace." Who would? But, Peter's infraction which brought about the confrontation with Paul was due to his actions which were in conflict with sound theology, not his use of figurative language to explain the Gospel.
Lutheran Satire's "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies" video on YouTube is a hilarious video for teaching your 11th grade theology class about the Trinity and heretical concepts surrounding the doctrine. But, using an analogy to explain that it is possible for a thing which is three in one aspect and one in another aspect can exist is not heretical at all. It's a true concept and must be accepted before moving to the weightier concepts in the doctrine. It may just be good teaching for a particular context. Analogies are not to be taken as complete, they are only meant to point to one or some similarities. This is the nature of that conceptual tool. When teaching my six-year-old daughter about the Trinity, it is more effective to show her a clover than to recite the Athanasian Creed. I'm not worried about her falling into Partialism. I, as her father, teacher, and pastor, know better. And when she matures, she can take on the heavier theology and sources. This is what makes the video funny, St. Patrick is simply trying to contextualize but is constantly called out by Donall and Conall who are disappointed at his lack of precision.
The Chosen series is another production taking a lot of unnecessary criticism. Nobody (that I know of) is watching the Chosen for doctrinal purposes. The value of the series is the aesthetic, the interest in the faith it fosters, and the contextualization it gives to people who get to see what an ancient Eastern culture could have looked like. It essentially works like an analogy. If a teacher or a church are using it to generate doctrine or disciple youth, your criticism belongs with that teacher or church. Personally, my church views the show and uses it to sharpen our doctrinal precision by weeding out what is off and unbiblical from what is sound and biblical, all while enjoying the art of it.
Once, in the 2000s, I was chastised in home group for listening to the band POD because of their "worldly" music. The man who was criticizing me took me to his desktop computer to prove to me this band did not glorify God. He pulled up a song and read the lyrics to me: "I lay down, and I sleep, when I awake, sustain me." He threw his hand up and said, "What is this nonsense? Does this glorify God?" In this home group leader's zeal and lack of biblical literacy he inadvertently criticized King David's Third Psalm. Indeed, zeal without knowledge is not great.
Arguments that Christian songs have become too flowery or too focused on feelings are also pushing against a biblical precedent. The Psalms are full of deeply emotional songs with tears, laments, adorations, and affections. It's not the Christian songs which are becoming effeminate, it's the christian men. And in addition to becoming effeminate, they are becoming overbearing, unbiblical, and dimwitted. Telling God you love Him and feeling that love is manly and biblical. And critics of the practice would probably not have the guts to challenge a man like King David, who did, on his songs.
We cannot read minds. Our only means to convey ideas to each other is language. The burden is on us to use critical thinking and correctly interpret messages that are aimed towards us. Any demand for accuracy and precision is a double edged sword. We can demand more precise language, but are we using precise understanding?
Comments