stuff I think about – Page 16

Back to the Bible

On his web site, Brian McLaren gives some suggestions about songwriting. A follow-up is here, with some more technical suggestions for songwriters.

I appreciate both articles, but neither suggested something I have wondered for a while. What’s wrong with putting actual Bible verses or passages into the songs? I’m going to sound like an old geezer now, but [insert old man voice] I remember when I could recognize the scripture from where the authors drew their inspiration. If you were to look in my Bible, you would see little musical notes I’ve drawn in the margins, next to a passage I recognized in a song. Not many songs from the last several years have been noted, and it’s NOT that these songs aren’t biblical; it’s just that they aren’t Bible.

Perhaps one of the reasons behind this phenomenon is the Bibles that songwriters are using. There’s nothing wrong with the NIV or NLT for personal study or meditation, but there isn’t much there in the way of memorable prose that isn’t borrowed from the good old King James Version. I know, I know, it’s just my own opinion, but that’s what a blog is for, right? 🙂

The authors of the KJV, and its modern descendents like the NASB or (my preference) the ESV, spent a great deal of time and effort creating prose that was lyrical as well as meaningful. Today’s songwriters may do well to take a look at translations such as these when searching for just the right words. As an example, take a look at the NLT version of Is. 9:7, as compared to the ESV — especially the last sentence — and see what I mean. (Hey, I’m not just looking around for the worst example; this is one of the passages McLaren mentions in his article as a place where songwriters should go for inspiration.)

I know that McLaren discouraged the use of “King James English” in new songs, and I heartily agree that the days of Thee and Thou are over. However, am I the only one who would rather sing about “zeal” instead of “passionate commitment”? Let’s not throw away some of the meaningful expressions, phrases, and imagery we can find in the KJV family just because we want to be (post-)modern and contemporary. A little ancient to go with our future might not be a bad thing.

Batgirl’s view of the Bible

The Bible is a tool to help us interact with the One True God. As such, I believe the actual value of it is realized as we see how God dealt with people and situations in the past. We see his character revealed.

We get glimpses of his detailed involvement with people and events and we come to expect some of the same in our lives and situations. Therefore, it is an infinitely useful book.

It draws us to ask God to interact with us with patience and mercy as he did the Israelites in the wilderness.
It invites us to ask God to provide for us as He did the Egyptians through Joseph’s wisdom during their abundance and famine.
It challenges us to seek God in such a way that He would talk to us face to face as He did with Moses.
It encourages us to have faith to believe Him for those things that seem unbelievable like Abraham and Sarah and their expectations of having children more numerous than the stars.
It reminds us that following Him means leaving other things behind like the disciples in the New Testament.

If we read it for knowledge, we are missing the point. It is a book of action. Therefore, the Bible must provoke us to action for it to be most effective.

Just why did Jesus become a man?

Here’s an interesting link to a link to a link regarding the above. Please take a look at it, then come back.

I think one of the weaknesses of our late twentieth century evangelicalism is the emphasis on a “personal relationship” with Jesus. Now hold on before you call me a heretic.

The idea of a “personal” relationship with God was all but unknown to the Israelites of the Old Testament. Sure, Abraham and Moses had a friendship with God, but that was the exception, not the rule. (Bunny trail: how many of today’s Christians say that their relationship with God is like a friendship? Not me. In fact, aren’t we encouraged to set aside the “Jesus is my friend” notion as something that is OK for grade school but not as we get older? Maybe we should be rethinking this. But, back to the point.)

It is clear that one of the primary purposes of Jesus on this earth is to emphasize the fatherhood of God. We are to relate to God the Father as his children. And in the upper room, Jesus made the big pronouncement that he is calling his followers his friends. Both positions (child and friend) imply a personal relationship.

However, in our rush to be personal with God, I think we have all but thrown out the relationship that was already established and well-known to the children of Israel: relating to God as his people. The idea so prevalent in the Old Testament is not something I hear much about. However, it is echoed in the New Testament as well.

When the church relates to Jesus as a body does to the head, it’s not in a personal way. That is, a body’s organs do not relate personally or directly with the head; they simply take direction and follow orders. A soldier in an army (another picture of the church) does not personally know the commanding officer. In both scenarios, each member is incomplete (dare I say useless?) without the other members, and all members function as a unit to accomplish the will of their leader. Their identity is found within a larger group.

So we have this dichotomy. I enter into a relationship with Jesus where He calls me friend, and we have love for each other. I also enter into a relationship with other followers, where we band together to accomplish a greater mission than anything I could accomplish alone.

It seems that many of us think of church as a place where we can learn more about our personal relationships with God, rather than as a place where we have a job to do together. Church hopping, a lack of commitment, and a “what’s in it for me” mentality are the result of the over-emphasis on being a child of God, and not spending enough time on being the people of God.