A First Try...

Here's a first try at a review of a song for this new website that Kevin, Craig and I are putting together. I chose this particular song because as I was picking songs this past week I came across this one in the repertoire of our band and wasn't sure what I thought of it. Upon further more careful reflection, I'm inclined to use it. I'm not exactly sure who the author is as I found different authors listed on different websites. I welcome feedback on the format (how does this work as a review) and the content of the review itself (though I hope you will post any feedback on the content of the review on our new website which should be up shortly). Here's my review:

Beautiful One
By Jeremy Camp(?)

Links:
Lyrics
Jeremy Camp

The primary message of this song is a rhapsodic declaration of one’s love for the Beautiful One, that is presumably the LORD (presumably so given that none of the Trinitarian names are used: Father, Son, or Holy Spirit). Thus, this is not a song that focuses on only one person of the Trinity. In fact upon closer inspection, this could be considered a fully Trinitarian song. The first verse speaks of the Beautiful One in the cross (the Son), the second verse speaks of the Beautiful One in creation (the Father, “creator of heaven and earth”[1]), and the third verse speaks of the work of the Beautiful One in opening one’s eyes and capturing one’s heart (the Holy Spirit?, “No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit”[2]). In this respect, Beautiful One, avoids the pitfalls of several contemporary praise songs’ singular focus on one person of the Trinity to the neglect or exclusion of the other persons of the Trinity.

But what are we to make of this name “Beautiful One” which is used over and over again? The language used in Beautiful One is probably most clearly connected with the language of the Song of Solomon: “Ah, you are beautiful , my love; ah, you are beautiful ; your eyes are doves. Ah, you are beautiful , my beloved, truly lovely.”[3] Although, in the Song of Solomon the declaration of the beauty of the beloved is always toward the bride from the bridegroom (or from the bride about herself[4]). If a Christian interpretation of the Song of Solomon posits God or Jesus as the bridegroom and the bride as the church, then these declarations of beauty in the Song of Solomon are coming from God to the church. [5] Or maybe because the poetic genre of the Song of Solomon, this kind of interpretation of who is declaring whom beautiful is too rigid. Poetry often has multiple senses for any given line or phrase. Other than this possible interpretation of the Song of Solomon, “beautiful” is not used to refer to God in the NRSV or TNIV translations of the Bible.[6] Perhaps this use of “Beautiful One” as a name of God is influenced more by a romantic notion of the relationship between God and God’s people borrowed from the general tenor of the Song of Solomon than a biblical notion of God’s name.

Several other biblical allusions are used throughout the song. Some of them are: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard” (1 Cor 2:9), “Your glory fills the sky” (Psalm 19:1 or Romans 1:20), and “You opened my eyes to your wonders anew” (Psalm 119:18).

One theological quibble I would have with this song’s implied soteriology is the phrase “you captured my heart.” Coming from a Wesleyan perspective this sounds a bit too Calvinistic to me. I am not sure God “captures” one’s heart though God does work preveniently to allow one’s heart to respond freely to God’s love (“We love because he first loved us”[7]). I suspect the phrase comes again from the Song of Solomon which says, “You have ravished my heart” (NRSV) or “You have captured my heart” (The Message).[8] Once again, in this passage of the Song it is the bridegroom speaking to the bride. If this soteriology is implied it is very subtle and does not appear elsewhere.

Some may take issue with this song’s personal and singular focus and with its repetition of the first person singular pronouns “I” and “me.” And while this is true (the song does not have a community focus), and a steady diet of “me” and “I” songs to the neglect of any “we” songs is probably not a very well-rounded diet, any given song’s singular focus (this one included) is no worse than any given psalm’s singular focus (the Psalms have 786 instances of “I,” 675 of “me” and only 84 of “we”). Moreover, Beautiful One’s phrase, “Your cross has spoken mercy over me” is reminiscent of John Wesley’s sermon Justification by Faith. Wesley says, “Justifying faith implies, not only a divine evidence or conviction that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself;’ but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for ‘my’ sins, that he loved ‘me,’ and gave himself for ‘me.’”[9]

Conclusion: The song’s implied Trinitarian structure and its abundant use of biblical allusions make this an overall strong song theologically. While it has it’s potential pitfalls (it’s subtle Calvinistic soteriology), depending on one’s theological framework this may or may not be a liability. I would use this song but would use it in the context of other more community focused songs. I would also use this kind of adoration and love language in proportion to its use in scripture. Thus, too many “I love you” or “I adore you” songs might neglect other just as important love emphases in other parts of scripture such as “love your neighbor as yourself.”[10]

---

[1] Apostles’ Creed

[2] 1 Cor 12:3

[3] Song 1:15-16 (NRSV)

[4] Song 1:5

[5] Rev 21:2

[6] Jerusalem and Mt. Zion are called “beautiful” in Psalm 48:2 as is the “branch of the Lord” in Isaiah 4:2 and Israel in Ezekiel 16.

[7] 1 John 4:19

[8] Song 4:9

[9] http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/5/

[10] Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, and Romans 13:9.

Theology and praxis

What is the importance of members of a denomination to adhere to the explicit theological positions of a denomination? Should a United Methodist be a Wesleyan? Should a Presbyterian (USA) be a Calvinist? Should a Catholic be a Thomist? Should an Episcopalian be a Hookerite or an Andrewesian? etc.?


The sub question of this is what is the minimum catichetical understanding for church members which you would be satisfied in as a pastor?

A new blog?

So I'm in the middle of planning worship songs for July. I'm realizing its a daunting task to think theologically about every song our band is able to play. I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in starting a blog or website of some sort to offer theological critiques (postives and negatives) of the widely used praise songs that are out there. Any takers? Anyone interested?
Peace,
Tom

What is faith?

Faith is a graced belief and trust in spite of uncertainty.

I've been working on this definition for about six or seven years now. I'm curious what you all think. Here's a paragraph from my sermon this Sunday where I flesh that out:

What does it mean to “serve the Lord”? Serving the Lord begins first with faith in Jesus Christ. But what is faith? Faith includes two things: belief and trust. Faith must include trust because if it is only belief, then it does not lead to action. And the book of James says that faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:26). But trust must also have belief lest we put our trust in the wrong thing. Faith is both belief and trust. And faith is also belief and trust in spite of uncertainty. When we have faith our uncertainty does not necessarily go away. If we were entirely certain then we would not need faith. And because faith is in spite of uncertainty, faith is a graced belief and trust. God’s grace works in us and helps us to have faith. It is something that is both God’s work in us and our response to God. Thus, faith is a graced belief and trust in spite of uncertainty.

On the Rise of the Rebel Virgins

A recent editorial from Christianity Today (CT) raises an interesting and common question: “what if having protected sex with my fiancée seems like it will increase our health and happiness?”

At issue is a movement on college campuses to promote virginity in order to avoid the harmful consequences of casual sex. The writers applaud the trend, but note that, though the rationale offered by the “virginity clubs” points to an ethical result similar to that taught by the Church, the rationale itself is insufficiently theological. The writers quote Lauren Winner, Assistant Professor of Christian Spirituality at the Duke Divinity School (and a member of the Episcopal Church) in noting the distinction between this secular view of sexuality and that of Scripture:

Read it all....

Sermon Feedback

Dear Socratics,
I've formed a sermon feedback team to give me weekly feedback on my preaching. Below is the preaching evaluation from preaching class. What question do you wish had been added to this form? Or have any of you developed something like this?
Peace,
Tom

P.S. There was one in the Preaching Dictionary by Willimon (I don't remember what entry it was and I didn't end up buying that book...does anyone have it?)

PR30 Evaluation Sheet
Name of Preacher ____________________
Sermon Text _____________

Evaluate using the rating below:

5 Excellent 2 Fair

4 Good 1 Poor

3 Improvement Needed

1. Was the sermon idea clear? 5 4 3 2 1

2. Was the text exegeted adequately? 5 4 3 2 1

3. Were illustrations sufficient and consistent with exegesis? 5 4 3 2 1

4. Was the sermon content connected with the text? 5 4 3 2 1

5. Was the theological perspective clear and accurate? 5 4 3 2 1

6. Was there adequate movement in the sermon? 5 4 3 2 1

7. How well was the idea developed? 5 4 3 2 1

8. Was it clear why this sermon was preached? 5 4 3 2 1

9. Was it clear to whom this sermon was preached? 5 4 3 2 1

10 Did this sermon proclaim the gospel of Christ? 5 4 3 2

Delivery:

11 Was the preaching done with confidence and conviction? 5 4 3 2 1

12 Were enunciation and diction clear? 5 4 3 2 1

13 Was the presence of the preacher consistent with the content of the sermon? 5 4 3 2 1

14 Were gestures enhancing or distracting? 5 4 3 2 1

15 How did the presence of the preacher contribute to the credibility of the

preached word? 5 4 3 2 1

Other comments: