Worship Leaders Network | Worship Leader Forum | Worship Leader Resources & Jobs
Worship Songs of Today Are They Valid?
I recently read a discussion on this site about Mat Redman's "Blessed Be The Name" This person was asking if anyone felt the song had embraced "bad theology" over the lyrics "...you give and take away" This fellow who started this discussion mentioned that a member of his congregation had approached him about the lyric stating that it "can't be found in the New Testament". I applaud this person from the congregation that approached the worship leader and asked for biblical backing for the song he sang. I feel that people absolutely do not do this enough. Is it a petty scenario? Probably. However, there are many things that get included into worship songs and sermons that have little to no biblical support and they are accepted as truth without any reservation by the listener. Many on the discussion forum seemed to rebuke the congregation member for approaching the worship leader saying things like "this is an example of foolish disputes", is it? Is it a foolish dispute when someone says "you said something I can't find in the bible, will you show me where you found it?" Is it a foolish dispute for someone to ask for proof that a biblical phrase is being used in context in a song or a sermon? This is why so many false doctrines and traditions of men are so prevalent in our churches today. Very few have the wherewithal to make someone stand accountable for something they said or sang. I understand why this particular song gets a bad review from some people. The song is a bit misleading in it's approach. I love Matt Redman and I understand what he was going for and I applaud it. However, we often hear the phrase "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away" recited at funerals and tragic events, when people decide to blame God for their misfortune. God gets blamed for a lot of stuff. Many use that line to blame Him. This is why I feel that many could take offense to this beautiful song. I admit when I first heard this song I fell in love with it, but when I heard that phrase "you give and take away" being sang so festively it ruined it for me! I've often wondered why he chose to place that lyric in that song. I understand now after reading Matt's explanation of why he wrote the song. Now as worship leaders it is our job to research the songs we sing for a better understanding and for biblical harmony. Any lyric that could be difficult to interpret should be explained to the congregation before it is sang. I feel we need to make certain of songs we sing to a valid reason for their existence. They should not be sang only because they have a cool groove or melody.
Tags: be, blessed, choice, current, disputes, foolish, leading, matt, name, redman, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Toni on -
Just a few thoughts:
It's good when someone questions a worship song enough to want to understand whether it's biblical or not.
God does indeed 'give and take away', both in old & new testaments. That particular line's meaning is quite clear and present in the bible - a shame that they couldn't find it for themselves, though much better that they asked for clarification than have doubts. However you might want to look into the meaning of the word 'misfortune'.
There are enough songs around with bad theology, usually springing from good intentions, and it's been going on for years. e.g. Jesus Take me As I Am has the line 'make my flesh life melt away' ignoring the need to crucify our flesh. One of my wife's comments has been that Christians don't tell lies - they only sing them.
Paragraphs are wonderful things. ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Stevo on -
Love it - the statement about singing lies.
One only has to look at so many hymnals to find Christian lyrics rife with gnosticism, universalism and many other isms that have plagued the church in recent years.Modern music has no monopoly on falsehood. I'm not saying the majority of hymns are bad, only that there are plenty of bad ones out there.
My biggest complaint with modern music, aside from poor musicality, is the lack of any position at all. Heck, a Muslim could sing a number of our modern songs and be quite happy.
-
Permalink Reply by Greg Moore on -
Nobody's bitten on the Muslim aspect; but I have heard quite enough songs in which the author loves God "because of who He is" or "what he has done" or "through all we've been through" and never actually says anything of substance about who He is, what He does or has done, or what we've gone through. Then when it is supported by soft rock, which lacks any musical position at all, then...
Out of the mouths of babes comes... pablum.
-
Permalink Reply by Stevo on
-
LOL. That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. Beats my diaper comment by miles.
But you're definitely on to what I was trying to get accross.
-
Permalink Reply by David Straley on
-
I, too, am a real “stickler” for lyrics. There are so many popular worship songs which I just can’t play for that reason. Then, there are many others for which I have to tweak the lyrics to make them “acceptable” by my standards. (I’m really not hard to get along with, please believe … I just want songs which I really agree with.)
But the lyrics I tweak are not just due to bad doctrine. Another significant reason is that there are “deadbeat words” in the song. Here’s an example:
“How great is our God … sing with me!”
Excuse me? This is a song which we are singing TO GOD, correct? So then, when we say, “sing with me”, may I request to know … WHO are we then speaking to? Who is it that we are telling to “sing with us”? Who?
Well, surely, we’re not telling God to sing with us, right? So who? Obviously, it must be referring to our neighbor, right? (Please correct me.) Do you really want to interrupt your worship of God by turning to your neighbor and telling him something? (Well, I don’t.)
I consider that phrase, “Sing with me” to be a “deadbeat phrase” (my own terminology). I has *no power*. It’s really just a “filler”, in my estimation. It servers the purpose of filling up a couple beats of time with syllables. I love Chris Tomlin, but may I call a spade a spade?
So, I tweaked this song. Now, when I sing it, I sing it like this:
“How great is our God, the earth declares!”
I have to do this kind of exercise with so many songs. I really wish I didn’t, but they just need some more “work” before I can sing them wholeheartedly. :)
Bless you and take care,
David Straley
http://WorshipOfHeaven.com (Song-Sharing Ministry)
-
Permalink Reply by Stevo on
-
"Do you really want to interrupt your worship of God by turning to your neighbor and telling him something? (Well, I don’t.)"
You mean like Psalm 106:48? And are we singing it to God if we say, "How great is our God"? Wouldn't we be saying, "How great are you God"? I don't think that song is directed one-on-one to God, it's more in third person.
Actually, I agree with you, but not on this song. How about "Shine Jesus Shine" or "You're my all, You're the Best" as in the song, Knowing You? I always find myself recalling conversations between Wally and Beaver Cleaver when we sing that.
I had never thought of calling them deadbeat lyrics, but that's a good term.
-
-
You mean like Psalm 106:48? And are we singing it to God if we say, "How great is our God"? Wouldn't we be saying, "How great are you God"? I don't think that song is directed one-on-one to God, it's more in third person.
Hi Steve,
I asked for “correction” and you’ve come through. Thank you!
You are correct. “How Great is Our God” is 3rd Person. What I should have said was that this song (which I really like) helps people to focus on God. Certainly, worship songs should do that. But then, with that goofy little “sing with me” phrase, it pulls the person who’s singing the song back away from the throne of God, as if he’s a school teacher talking to his/her students. That's why I "tweaked" those words - to replace them with words which have more significance and which will flow with the worship, which will work towards the purpose of helping people to connect with God.
Ha. You also challenged me with that Scripture. OK, let me say for starters, that I do believe the following Scripture:
2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
As such, we must accept ALL of Scripture as being from God, and it is ALL valuable by His definition of what “value” is. But that doesn’t mean that it’s all suitable for singing in a worship song, does it? Does it?
I realize I may be shooting a “sacred cow” here, especially since you challenged me with a verse from the Bible’s own “song book”. I still maintain that although the whole Bible (including all 150 Psalms) are rock-solid Scripture and reliable, that even these songs which have been recorded for us are *not* all good worship material. But they're all still Scripturally accurate.
Here are a couple examples from other songs in the Bible – and these are just as “scriptural” as are the Psalms:
The Song of Moses (this is his 2nd song recorded in the Bible): Deuteronomy 32:1-43.
There probably aren’t too many of us who’d want to sing this, but God flat-out dictated this song to Moses and commanded him to make the people sing it: (Deut 31:19-22)
The Song of Deborah (Judges 5:1-31).
Both of these Biblical songs are 100% true, but they’re more like “historical” and “teaching”. Same thing with various verses of the Psalms, sprinkled thoughout the Psalms. They are still true and reliable, but not necessarily the most appropriate worship lyrics.
Now, as far as those other songs which you mentioned, maybe you could tweak the offending words? What do you think? I will say, however, that I have a whole pile of songs which IMO need so much tweaking that I gave up on them. I don't actually LIKE to tweak other people's songs. I only do it because the alternative (for me) is to throw away that song altogether. I'm just not going to sing it if I can't wholeheartedly agree with it. :)
Thanks again for your comments!
Kind Regards,
David Straley
Worship of Heaven Song-Sharing Ministry
-
Permalink Reply by Stevo on
-
Ha ha. School teacher - good one. It is a little strange of a statement and I've quietly felt that way but always accepted it.
As for those Psalms you mentioned, they're known as didactic or teaching Psalms. Funny how you figured that out without the fancy seminary training. It kind of proves that it's just that - fancy.
As for tweaking words, there was a long thread about that some time back. It seems that it violates the CCLI license to do so unless you have permission.
-
Permalink Reply by Greg Moore on
-
There is one form of 'stealing' that is legal and time-honored: parody.
"On top of spaghetti, all covered with cheese..."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school..."
"On a hill far away stood an old Chevrolet..."
Spike Jones gave the sentimental and over-sung love song "Chloe" a disrepectful but well-deserved burial with his parody.
David's Psalms occasionally begin "to the tune of..."
(there is serious parody as well as comic).
"Fair Use" provision of U.S. Copyright Law gives us the right to record parodies. Weird Al Yankovic, the grand master of parody, always asks permission, but only because he's an all right guy. It's a badge of honor to be funnied by Yankovic, and only one out of 50 or so deny his requests. There is still a border line." In a Stan Freberg parody ("Top Hat, White Feather and Tails") he has Peter Minuit's lawyer advise "If we use any more, we'll have to pay a royalty", and abruptly changes the line of chatter.
I guess it speaks well for the Christian community that we rarely parody our own mindless or overused songs! (either that, or we're simply too serious).
-
Permalink Reply by rob k on -
Danger!!!
A lot of what is called parody today is in fact not parody and would not be considered fair use. Weird Al gets permission because he knows that most, if not all, of his songs are NOT parody and so he would get sued if he did not get permission. (And a lot of Apologetix is sadly not parody either).
To be considered parody, ( and qualify as fair use) a song must comment upon or criticize the original work. It does not have to be funny, it does not have to be sarcastic in fact it can look at the original work in a positive light. The key to parody is that it must comment or criticize the original.
If you read Weird Al's lyrics and then read the lyrics of the song he is using for his music, you will see that his lyrics have absolutely nothing to do with the song he is using.
Then there is melody. Al has to get permission because he is using melodies and even arrangements almost entirely unchanged. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music" (Pretty Woman, Ray Orbison vs 2live crew) Justice David Souter says that you can only use enough of the original music to establish what song it is you are trying to parody. In his words (about the music)
"This is not, of course, to say that anyone who calls himself a parodist can skim the cream and get away scot free."
Botton line! Be careful! I don't want any of my friends on the "pointy end" of a law suit because they misjudged what parody actually is.
rob k
True parody? You decide!
"Wastin' the Day? Not When There Is a Need to Fill!"
A musica commentary on the song "Margaritaville" by James Buffet
Verse 1
Liv'ng for the Son's sake. Helpin' someone make
Their way through life with its trouble and toil.
He is my life-spring. Now I can do something.
Not just sit with my head in the soil.
Chorus
Wasting the day? Not when there is a need to fill.
Not letting my life grind to a halt.
Some people shrink away; won't stay in the game
But I hope I'm livin' as salt!
-
Permalink Reply by Stevo on
-
I just noticed this reply.
So you have to get permission to use the melody even if your use qualifies as parody?
And no, I'm not in danger. I'm not clever enough to even pull off a real parody.
-
Permalink Reply by rob k on
-
And I just noticed this reply also.
And the answer is yes. You have to get permission to use the words you write with someone else's melody, even in a parody. You cannot take a whole melody, unaltered, write new words to it and call it fair use, not even if the lyrics qualify as a parody.
That was clearly stated in the Supreme Court decision on Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music" (Pretty Woman, Ray Orbison vs 2live crew). Basically what they said was that you are allowed to use as much of the original song as is needed so that people can recognize what song your parody is commenting on, but eventually you have to move away from the original song. Unfortunately, how much of the original you can use is not and will never be defined by a "bright line." There is no set rule as to how many bars or notes can be used before you have strayed into infringement. The courts have reserved the right to judge each case on its own particular facts.
The copyright law gives to the owner of a work, among other things, the right to produce what is called derivative works. The wholesale replacement of the words to a song would be considered a derivative work.
rob k
Another parody?
THE COVER WAS A ROLLIN’ STONE (Matthew 28:2)
It was a huge humdinger, took a truck to bring 'er, and if shoved it barely would go.
The thing was a beauty, but the thing was uncouth. At two thousand pounds or so.
The view inside it kills because the door it fills and the truth might not be known.
But he's gone you betcha and a look you'll getcha, 'cause the cover was a rollin stone.
chorus
Rollin stone
For the Savior's tomb it was a cover.
Stone
Peter, John and Mary, (not his mother)
Stone
Saw he rose up from that place 'cause the cover was a rollin stone.
Welcome to
Worship The Rock - Worship Leader Forum & Social Network
© 2013 Created by Phil Williams.
