“God” vs. “King” (a rant)
Quick quiz: Which of the following two statements is more awe-inspiring?
- A king dies in the place of one of his subjects
- The eternal God of the universe take on humanity and dies in the place of one of his creatures
Obviously, as great as the first is, the second is greater by several orders of magnitude.
I bring this up because in church today, we sang a praise song that is theologically accurate and edifying – and yet it annoyed me tremendously. Here’s the chorus of that song:
Amazing love, how can it be
That You my King would die for me
Amazing love, I know it’s true
It’s my joy to honor you
In all I do, I honor you
The first two lines probably sound familiar to those of you who were raised singing hymns. It’s a modification from Charles Wesley’s hymn “And Can It Be”. Here’s the first verse:
And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me who caused His pain,
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love – how can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
So, although Christ is our King, and a king dying for his subject is an awesome thing, it is a much more massive, significant and praiseworthy truth that it was not just our King who died for us, but God himself. I don’t know what the author of the modern chorus was thinking when he wrote it, but to take Wesley’s words and water them down as he did – frankly, it ruins the song for me.
(By the way, this is not a criticism of the worship team at my church. In fact, it’s not a criticism of anyone, or at least it’s not meant to be.)
June 28 2010 03:21 am | Uncategorized
Navor Tercero on 28 Jun 2010 at 5:15 am #
John, annoyance is a strong reaction. Aren’t both true? Isn’t the purpose of a worship song to express the truth of our salvation? It seems that your preference of one verse to the other is understandable, but I think that you go too far to impugn the motives of the songwriter to say that the message is watered down. One of the titles of Jesus is the King of kings so He is very comfortable with the title. There is a valid argument that could be made about the modern song being an inferior knockoff of the original, but that it would seem to me is putting style before substance.
John Moody on 28 Jun 2010 at 2:25 pm #
Navor – Yes, both are true, and I made sure in my post to state that both Wesley’s formulation and the modern modification are both stating valid theological truths. And yes, of course Jesus wears the title “King” quite well. But I don’t think this is just “style” over “substance” either. I’m sure the modern songwriter (I think it’s Chris Tomlin, but I’m not sure) wasn’t trying to cheat Jesus out of glory either. All I’m saying is that for me, switching from “my God” to “my King” in this instance is like trading in a filet mignon for a McDonald’s Double Cheeseburger – it’s still meat, but something is lost.
Navor Tercero on 28 Jun 2010 at 4:08 pm #
What I don’t understand, and as your brother I am trying to understand, is why this would be a source of irritation. We know that filet mignon is not an everyday course. I have heard your criticism of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” worship songs, and I agree that there are a lot of songs that are pure fluff. I have become much more attentive to the lyrics we sing in corporate worship. However, when I read your blog here I was puzzled that you would make so much over this. I guess I was just letting you know that your recent blog could be seen as an exercise in splitting spirtual hairs, not that you meant it as such. Please understand that I am not attacking your preference, I just don’t understand the degree of reaction.
John Moody on 28 Jun 2010 at 4:46 pm #
Well, you know odd things set me off!
Seriously, and to stretch my analogy to the breaking point, why would you choose the double cheeseburger from McDonalds instead of the filet if both were offered to you? If worship is “making much of God”, then why choose the lesser option (and by “lesser” here I mean that it doesn’t display the depth of Christ’s sacrifice as well as the alternative)? I’m not saying that it’s wrong to choose the lesser option, only that I don’t understand the rationale in doing so.
But then again, I don’t write songs, for which we all can be grateful!
Navor Tercero on 29 Jun 2010 at 4:33 am #
Why point out that a double cheeseburger is not a filet mignon when filet mignon wasn’t even on the menu? The worship team served up a nice double cheeseburger…I think I just broke the analogy
John Moody on 29 Jun 2010 at 1:45 pm #
OK, now I get where you’re coming from – and we’re definitely arguing past each other!
I’m NOT saying that the worship team should have picked one song over the other. (Although I’d love for them to do “And Can It Be” sometime – it’s a terrific hymn!) The moment of choice that puzzles me is not at the time of song selection, but when the song was written – why did the songwriter use the lesser claim when the greater claim was staring him in the face? (And we know it was staring him in the face because he adapted Charles Wesley’s lyrics.)