October 08 2009
Jesus Culture, we have a problem…your lyric
Tagged Under : Burning Ones, Chris Quilala, Jesus Culture, Kim Walker, theology, worship
Earlier I posted a video of a new song from Jesus Culture called “Burning Ones.” I really dug the vibe of the song and thought the melody was really cool. This past week I started evaluating it to see if we’d do it in service and step 1 of evaluation was writing down the lyrics. Verse 1 was kind of innocuous.
Here inside your presence I’m taken by the wonder of You
Here inside your glory we give our lives wholly to You
Moved on to the pre-chorus which was a simple “Holy, Holy are You” which was good and all. But then I hit Verse 2…
Your love it burns inside our hearts are satisfied by You
Your love is our reward it’s why we ask for more of You
What?!?! God’s love is our reward? Let’s look at the definition of reward to make sure we are on the same page here:
reward: “a recompense for worthy acts or retribution for wrongdoing” or “fair return for good or bad behavior”
It seems entirely ridiculous to me we’d have to dive into this much for us not to see the foolishness in this line. This isn’t extra-biblical this is entirely contra-biblical. It violates the core of the gospel. I don’t like to rant, but folks this line is simply not truth, and I’m shocked and saddened that it would be sung. Here’s what the gospel says about our reward for our actions:
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
So our just reward for our actions and fair return for our behavior is death, not God’s love. But the glory of the gospel is the cross, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more”. We received grace instead of what we deserved, death. Here’s how God’s love really works:
Romans 5:6-10 “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person–though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die–8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”
We did not and cannot earn God’s love, repeat, we did not and cannot earn God’s love. 1 John 4:19 “We love because he first loved us.” We can keep plowing through scripture, there is no shortage because it’s the entire narrative of the gospel.
I don’t know Chris Quilala, I don’t know Kim Walker, but I believe they are Christians brothers and sisters who love Jesus and I don’t mean to bash them. In fact I bet you if I asked them, “do you think you earned God’s love or did he love you first, while you were a sinner?” That they’d answer, “no, I didn’t earn it.” Which is why I’m so puzzled that they’d sing just the opposite.
I’ve tried to think of any context that line works in and I can’t, I just can’t. Working in the second half of the line only confuses me more, “that’s why we ask for more of You.” I haven’t a clue what this line means. If anyone has an explanation by all means step in here in the comments and let me in on it, I truly feel like I’m missing something.
Podcast - 
Facebook
Twitter
Soundcloud
Stumbleupon
Linked In
Vimeo
You Tube
Contact
Loading ...
well said… interesting take. I appreciate those, like you, who really comb through lyrics for what shouldn't be there. Thank you for your diligence.
I think the lyric is "Your love is all we want." I saw it that way on another site. He doesn't say it very clearly on the recording, but it makes more sense with the rest of the line. "Your love is all we want, it's why we ask for more of You."
I'm not trying to justify it, but it could be saying that nothing else is needed but the love of God. It is offered freely and not revoked if we fall short, but the writer here seems to be saying that there is no greater reward — no greater experience. He/she's not looking for fame or wealth or anything else but the love of God.
Just a thought.
Hmm, was that a Jesus Culture site? I've asked several others about the lyric and they all agreed it was "reward" I even looked at the video in slow motion and his mouth appears to say reward as well. Maybe that other site altered the lyric (for good reason), though the second half of the line would still make the first half weird at the very least. God doesn't increase his love for us over time after we ask for more.
That being said, I'd love to see a liner note.
I don't think it was a Jesus Culture site, but I can't find it now for the life of me. Either way, it's a good substitute. If you like the song, but not that line, just change it. Our worship team has done that several times – 'cause I totally agree about not using lyrics that aren't biblical.
God doesn't increase his love for us if we ask for more, but the line doesn't say "ask for more of Your love." It says "more of You." If God's love is all I want, I ask for more of Him – more of His presence, more of the knowledge of Him, etc.
I'm feelin' what Ben is saying too. People live for different things, and it can often seem like – as Christians – we're living for nothing. We don't esteem riches or fame, and the life of faith is often an up-hill battle. We don't earn God's love, but it's what we're living for. The dictionary definition of "reward" makes it a less than ideal word, but he may be using it in that sense: of a final prize, end result, goal, etc.
I am all about analyzing lyrics and there are songs that I love 95% of but I won't lead worship them because of a couple of lyrics. For instance in Deliver Me, Crowder says "now that you're here, now that I've found you…" I can actually twist that around to make sense in my head, but from the surface lyric I think to myself, we didn't find God…He wasn't lost, we were. It's nitpicky, perhaps, but there are plenty of other song options out there so it's not a big deal to scratch that one from the stage.
That to say, I agree with what you've written about and why you've written, but I'm not sure the way you wrote it is as edifying as it could have been. I think you could have stated your case without going on such a rant. No offense intended.
Peace.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mandy Thompson and Jason Carroll. Jason Carroll said: @mandythompson interesting post you shared (http://bit.ly/aB6j7), I posted a response as well…hopefully not an offensive one. [...]
I tried to be clear and demonstrate the importance of the issue while not attacking the writer or their church. Because I love those guys as brothers and they do a lot of great stuff for the kingdom. So if my critique of their song came across as brash or cold, that was not my intention. I think it's important to clarify the gospel, reiterate truth and critique our music to see if it is demonstrating and articulating the gospel well or not. But I agree with you that it should be done in an edifying way. So where I have failed in that, I ask for forgiveness and pray it's covered by grace.
Yeah I tried to go down that path too. But the word "reward" doesn't just poorly communicate that idea, it actively works against it. At the very least I'd hope when reviewing the song lyrics they'd say, "this line is dangerously convoluted, let's find a better way of stating this." It's important for us to do that in our imagery and certainly important when making declarations like this.
Huh – I didn't read it that way at all – I thought what Kyle said was appropriate and without meanness, etc.
In fact, I would say that ALL worship songwriters need to be held to something like this – we are basically writing prayers for people to sing, and paraphrases of the Bible. It's imperative that both be theologically sound!
Perhaps I misread. To me, even the title alone seems to be a direct attack versus a general commentary. However, I can see how the title is simply being used to get attention and that isn't necessarily a bad thing with this subject matter. Again, I mean no offense.
A worship leader who I like a lot said something recently along the lines of "What if your songs are the only Truth they hear? How deep would your people be?" Just another way to reiterate that we do need to be sound in our lyrical theology.
I'm not attacking Jesus Culture but I am holding them accountable, because it's their lyric. That's the reason they appear in the title. Maybe a subtle difference, but an important one I think as it speaks to the heart and purpose of the discussion.
Thanks Mandy.
I'd like to see their response to this…
Dear Kyle,
I appreciate your heart, bro, but I think you're making much ado about nothing. In Gen. 15, God tells Abraham, "I am your very great reward" (v. 1). According to the definition you posted, Abraham didn't earn God through works and so on. Besides, this time it was God himself saying the he is the reward. I'm a worship leader and lyrics matter to me very much, but we have to also keep in mind how words are used in common venues today. Granted, a lot of words get used for something other than what they mean (Example: one of our young adults paid me a compliment by saying that my guitar solo was "sick", meaning "awesome; good".). I think "reward" is used this way in this song. I think it's intended to mean something like "treasure", or even saying to God, "You are worth it; you're love is worth it." I think we should cut them some slack and trust the Lord to let them know what He wants or doesn't. He's a lot better at it.
Great discussion.
As Sacredfly mentioned, there are times in the Bible where God talks about both being our reward, but also giving reward for those who serve Him. (Matt 6:18, John 12:26, James 1:12 especially, all the while acknowledging translation issues with how these verses appear).
I think the line is digging into a truth that God loving us is such a reward. And use of the word reward is prevalent in some translations and not others. It can all help to throw fresh perspective on God's Word. When I write, I try to read as many translations of the Bible as possible – to broaden any preconceptions I might have about a verse.
Even the definition of reward you've given, implies it is fair for what's been done. However, my personal view of the word is merely just that it is return – fair or unfair. Different dictionaries will back up that view too (eg: 3. something received in return for good or evil – Collins Essential English Dictionary), which is also from a dictionary, is less clear cut as to whether it is fair. (1/2)
(2/2)
Language, especially English, isn't clear – and I applaud Jesus Culture for sometimes using words/phrases which feel a bit uncomfortable, but each time I've dug into the Word, I've found substantiation for what the lyric has been. I'm all for being held accountable for lyrics, as long as it also comes with being open to understanding we might have preconceptions over what a word means that might not necessarily be the full meaning.
When it opens up discussions like this, I think that is a great thing. The parables of Jesus did that – not all who heard understood, but by rightly dividing the Word of truth, we can reveal that truth.
Sorry…that was REALLY long…hence the split….eeek!
Let's refer to God speaking to the father of our faith:
Genesis 15:1 which says, “…Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your EXCEEDINGLY GREAT REWARD.” I love God's Word. It's so clear and precise. "God is Love" so love is our exceedingly… great… reward. Those are words to breakdown, marinate, and chew on. Use the "Strong's" online, if needed.
Love the site,
Shaun Smith
"In all your getting, get understanding."
I think the meaning they were trying to communicate was 'your love is all I want'
but…
I agree with your assessment, and I wouldn't bother 'fixing it' . I generally lean towards 'just don't do the song'. I feel life is too short, there are so many songs and correcting a song can seem as a implied approval of the song especially to others who also want to do the song but haven't fixed it.
just my 2 cents
Thanks for the comment Shaun,
A couple comments have referenced this scripture so hopefully this can touch on both comments. Genesis 15 is the detailing of God's covenant with Abram. In the literal translations (ESV for example) Gen 15:1 reads:
"…I am your shield; your reward shall be very great."
And Abram questions God as to what his gift is (v2) and God goes on to explain his gift of many children to Abram(v4-6). So the context here is Abram's blood line and fulfillment of God's promise. So I'd say the use of this scripture in reference to the song(love) is misplaced.
I think we can all agree(I hope) that God's love for Abram pre-existed Gen 15:1, didn't God's calling in chapter 12 and his promise to bless Abram show God's love? Or even in the formation of the womb?
Here's the point I'm trying to make, God's love for us is not based off of merit. It's based on God and his grace alone. No amount of "good" living can earn it or increase it. Paul refers to Jesus as our "prize" and that is so true, but our prize Jesus and his love are a gift. The prize is given not earned, which should make us all exceedingly thankful, otherwise we'd be in BIG trouble.
That distinction is important and I think the word "reward" at the very least blurs that distinction. If we're having to say "hey look at the 3rd definition of reward, that's what I meant" then I think as songwriters we should say that's sufficiently ambiguous to deserve a rewrite.
There are plenty of examples of the usage of "reward" in scripture, Samuel(2 Samuel 22) talks about it, the Psalms(Psalm 18) talk about it, but not in context to God's love.
Found the same lyric in a poem/ prayer inside of a Roman Catholic churches newsletter.
The Greatest Gift we’ve ever known
Is faith in You, dear Lord;
We’re thankful for all You have done,
Your love is our Reward.
And as we gather here dear Lord,
Your Spirit’s here we pray;
To join with us in sweet accord
By blessing us this day.
(by Frank Dunne)
Really appreciate the discussion going on here. Thanks for pressing us to really think sharply about what we sing Kyle, I really value it. I'll try and keep it brief and my thoughts are not perfectly formed yet so apologies if they are a bit raw.
Rather than focusing on the use of "reward" in the lyric I think another question is what the author means by "your love". I agree with you Kyle, in the context you use it the love of God in salvation is a free gift and absolutely not a reward. But I also think the love of God is much more than that and the author of the song might be talking about something different. Elsewhere Paul mentions, For those who love God, all things work together for the good(Rom. 8:28). So it would seem that there are forms of God's love that can be rewards. In this instance it requires our love of Him in order for us to experience His love of working things for the good.
The context of the song might be focused on something related to this type of love. It's not mentioning the work of God's unconditional love but a response to that work. The language of the song is a people experiencing the glory of God, satisfied by God who are already burning with passion for Him. So for the second verse I see the author saying the forms of conditional love which God gives is what that we get from being His burning ones and we know that to be the most amazing soul-satisfying thing we could have so that's why we ask for more of Him. In short, our pursuing God is rewarded by the experience of His love because when we seek Him we will find him and God is love.
I read a related article by John Piper a while back on this topic, you can find it here: http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1645_is_gods_love...
Hope that makes some sense.
I totally agree. I'm 100% sure it's unintentional but it's a reminder that we need to put extreme care into the theology of our lyrics.
But I don't understand how you can point this out and give John Mark McMillan a free pass for the "How He Loves" lyric, "We are His portion". I don't care what the poetic meaning is – the literal meaning is also un-Biblical as God doesn't need us at all. We don't satisfy and type of need He has as He is complete within Himself. It's the same thing as "Burning Ones" – not intended to be bad theology but it is…
Hey Jeff,
Appreciate your comment. If you mean "free pass" as in I don't critique or evaluate John Mark's song the same as others then I'd say that's not the case. Every John Mark song I sing in church, and there are a lot, I put through the same evaluation process as any other song. I change *a lot* of his lyrics to adapt for corporate worship (including the line you mention), some songs I don't sing entire verses that I think are confusing are just not helpful in corporate worship. Remember he doesn't record corporate worship albums, so there's a lot of adapting/modification that takes place when I do them.
If you mean "free pass" as in I don't blog about or publicly critique John Mark, then you are mostly correct, though I've explained at least one of the line changes I do for his songs. I have a lot of biases in life, music, ministry and certainly biases towards my friends, and John Mark is that.
However my primary loyalty and devotion is to Jesus and the gospel, so I don't feel bad about changing John Mark's lyrics for my context, but I don't make a point to write a blog post about all of those changes either. So my bias may be clearly evident in what I choose to blog about, but I don't think it's hypocrisy of what I consider theologically sound worship songs. I am however deep in the trenches of sanctification and this blog certainly exposes weaknesses in me both intentionally and unintentionally.
So while I don't necessarily enjoy critique I certainly value and appreciate it. So thank you for pressing me, I need it.
Hey Jeff,
Appreciate your comment. If you mean "free pass" as in I don't critique or evaluate John Mark's song the same as others then I'd say that's not the case. Every John Mark song I sing in church, and there are a lot, I put through the same evaluation process as any other song. I change *a lot* of his lyrics to adapt for corporate worship (including the line you mention), some songs I don't sing entire verses that I think are confusing are just not helpful in corporate worship. Remember he doesn't record corporate worship albums, so there's a lot of adapting/modification that takes place when I do them.
If you mean "free pass" as in I don't blog about or publicly critique John Mark, then you are mostly correct, though I've explained at least one of the line changes I do for his songs. I have a lot of biases in life, music, ministry and certainly biases towards my friends, and John Mark is that.
However my primary loyalty and devotion is to Jesus and the gospel, so I don't feel bad about changing John Mark's lyrics for my context, but I don't make a point to write a blog post about all of those changes either. So my bias may be clearly evident in what I choose to blog about, but I don't think it's hypocrisy in what I consider theologically sound worship songs. I am however deep in the trenches of sanctification and this blog certainly exposes weaknesses in me both intentionally and unintentionally.
So while I don't necessarily enjoy critique I certainly value and appreciate it. So thank you for pressing me, I need it.
I think what we you are discussing here is not a peripheral issue theologically it is an issue of first importance. "For God so loved that he GAVE"; "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God"
If in some way we view God's love as rewarded, deserved, or earned through works, worship, or religious activity then we are displaying the wrong message. I think we should never in our messages, music, and media display a message that undermines gospel truth. I think artistic liberty when it comes to primary issues should be clear. If we have to go to this much trouble to explain/justify a line in a song then is it worth it? I think that if the song is done there would need to be a huge amount of time to clarify terms and meanings and I do not think that any would take to time to do it… Even if he did mean something entirely different, which i do not see, I think it is not worth the lengthy explanation. The cost is to high to sing a song where people would see God's love as a reward and not as a gift so undeserved.
Just my thoughts I am coming in late but I thank God for a worship leader like you kyle who cares about art submitted to the authority of scripture. Art should never usurp the authority of scripture.
Hey Kyle – thanks for your thoughtful, honest, and gracious answer. I appreciate you and this conversation (these kinds of important topics don’t come up often enough in the blogosphere!).
The big question I still have with the line in “How He Loves” is if there’s ANY context in which the line “We are His portion” isn’t theologically incorrect.
I guess what I’m looking for is a more thoughtful answer than “it’s poetic”, which isn’t really an explanation (‘not trying to be facetious).
It’s bothered for a while that everybody changes the “sloppy wet kiss” line (which isn’t really theological issue) but doesn’t seem to care about the theological issues with “We are His portion”…
Honestly, I only have a second to reply… but maybe it's a reference to Jesus' kingdom parables? I am not familiar with the song, but in the gospels, Jesus uses the image of reward — not as something that is earned, but as something that is graciously received.
Hey, just to throw this out to you but Isaiah 40:10 and 62:11 say God comes and His reward is with Him. There is no reward apart from Him. His reward is "with Him." What do you think is His reward? I think when you and I get Him, we get everything that He has. Do you think we are striving for a crown? Is that really what you are after? How trivial! Is heaven gold streets and mansions? Heaven is being with God. But God is love and peace and so much more. God has opened the community that He has known within the Godhead throughout eternity to us. We can experience all that God is. I say that is a reward, and the best kind at that.
That threw up a red flag for me too… The only one I could find was Deut 32:9- 'For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.' Obviously referring to Israel in that context. But could mean that we as the church are his devoted portion of the human race… I guess…
Yeah, and sloppy wet kiss is weird. Even if it's correct, kind of distracting imagery for worship.
But on the subject at hand, totally agree. Reward doesn't bother me as much as His love specifically being it. God loved the world and gave his Son whil we were sinners. The reward is abundant life and restored relationship. I'm just going to pass on the song. I have more great new music than I know what to do with.
good take. lots of tunes out there…
I think the last part of that line sums up the thought of "reward". We ask for more and more and more and more of God because he gives us unfailing love! To me that's pretty rewarding. I don't know of any worship songs that sing of gloom and doom and the wages of our sins is death. As a writer, my goal is to write so that it's easy to sing, easy to relate to, is accurate with scripture, and good. Good is that hard part! All that said, sometimes a writer will put a spin on a word and make it pop. I love the line of "Your love is our reward, it's why we ask for more of you". To me it is very accurate. Taken out of context, I see your beef with it. But take it in the context that the writer was placing it in and then it means something special.
Question: You're a sinner, know you're a sinner, and know that the wages of your sins are death. Without asking for God' mercy, your reward is hell. But when you ask for God's mercy, and receive salvation through Christ, isn't your reward "love"?
I don't think I took it out of context. At the very least the context is vague and confusing. I'm not sure what you mean by you don't know of any worship songs that sing of "gloom and doom" of sin. I really hope that's not true, but really sad if it is. We can't understand God's love for us unless we understand the depth of our sin and depravity.
To answer to your question. No, scripture is adamant that God's love is his undeserved gift, *not* reward. He loved us *while* we we sinners, dead in our sin. See the scripture references in the post. But because of his undeserved love he died for us and brought us to life. Not because of any works, so that you cannot boast. If the song said, "heaven is our reward" that would make more sense. But you can't juxtapose hell and God's love like you did in your question.
Thanks for the thoughts, appreciate them.
I didn't get the chance to dive into all the comments here, so maybe it's already been said…but what about the legality of changing lyrics? In the case of DC*B changing JMM's "How He Loves," David called Jon up directly and got permission (and I assume then followed by the proper legal agreements.)
What's your take on this?
Cheers.
sorry, not asking for your take on the "How He Loves" lyrics, but the legality of changing "Burning Ones."
Just as a different perspective (a long time after your original post…but never mind) we've had Shirley Carpenter teaching us over the last few weeks and she's been speaking of the difference between the grace we are given freely and the grace we "grow" in, just as Jesus did. We are to grow in favor, like Jesus did (Paul wrote of growing in grace, and it being multiplied). If you choose to cultivate relationship with God so that you spend more time with Him and be diligent in seeking Him, you WILL grow in favor with God. Not only that, we will grow to love Him more closely and we also will encounter His love in a more rich way. Looking at it from that perspective, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the more time spent on God, the more we seek Him for more of Him, the more love we have access to…because of where WE are positionally. "Your love is our reward, that's why we ask for more of YOU."
There are other definitions of "reward" I think you should consider. For example, the root meaning is "to take notice of", but it also means: blessing, honor, advantage, and in terms of specific definitions, psychology defines reward as "any pleasant event that follows a response and therefore increases the likelihood of the response recurring in the future", a satisfying return or profit, or to satisfy or gratify. If Jesus' love satisfies you, you have been rewarded. If you see it as a blessing or an honor or an advantage, then you are seeing it as a reward. The concept of reward you're talking about is common, but it is extremely narrow.
My recent post convicted in the wilderness?
Jason… Jeremiah 29:13 says: "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all of your heart." God was never lost, but we were… and we had to find HIM and then keep seeking Him with ALL of our heart.
VERY well said Sacredfly! Totally agree!
First of all, thank you for the encouragement I am receiving from this. It is such a blessing to see so many worship leaders wrestling with these kinds of issues, and though not all in 100% agreement, there is still a central unity amongst us all, and everyone seems to have an edifying intent. That is a definite light shining bright, and on a subject where great division and argument could certainly take place. AWESOME!
Regarding being His portion, I'm not entirely sure we can stamp this as theologically incorrect, though it may be a bit confusing. If you define portion as if we are giving something to Jesus, then you are correct… He is 100% complete and satisfied in the triune existence of God. However, if you take it in the context of the portion being something that is alloted to Jesus from God the Father, then we are indeed His portion… simply not a portion that we are giving to Him, but the Father. As Phil. 2 states, He will be exalted to the highest place and every knee will bow at His name (paraphrase). It also states multiple times that the Father beckons us unto Jesus, and Jesus enables us to be in relationship with the Father. So as a part of His kingdom, with Him being the King, we are a portion that is "given" unto Him.
In this context this line is theologically fine, if not great, seeing that we are bought with a price and will serve in His kingdom, but never by means of us earning it… making it all the more beautiful.
I hope this offers some perspective on the matter and that it is encouraging. Also, keep wrestling for the glory of God!
Josh,
Appreciate your perspective and really diligent biblical explanation. Your secondary perspective on the lyric certainly makes sense in light of Jesus saying he won't reject any the Father has brought to him(John 6:37). These types of lyrics are tough where you have 5 syllables to try and explain something that's taken this blog thousands of words to wrestle with.
Thanks again, really appreciate it