In church yesterday, as is the custom in most churches around the world, we were engaged in singing praises to our Lord for a time during the service. One of them happened to be that most ghastly of songs "Above All" (written by Michael W Smith).
Now I pretty well much have hated this song for a while (and by hate, I do wish that it be eliminated) but now I have a fairly well laid out rant against it.
1. It's hard for a congregation to sing:
Most professional musicians have usually had at least a modicum of vocal training at the very least. Most musicians you'd hope also have an ear for music. The problem is that if you take a piece of music which was originally written by a musician as a solo piece, and make a congregation sing it, invariably they do quite badly at it.
This could be said for all sorts of modern worship type songs. In the age of packaged media and digital recording, it is very easy to tweak even the very worst singers via autotune, such that they can sing well. The problem is that congregations don't have that luxury. Untrained singers who are trying to tackle a difficult line of music will usually do quite badly with it.
Exhibit A:
"Above all wealth and treasures of the earth.
There's no way to measure what You're worth"
Whilst it is true that I do not have the language to express what goes on at the end of this line, I can tell you that every congregation will maul it. The note/tone/chord structure is such that it is badly defined. Having untrained people sing a badly defined note results in much much badness.
F#m F#m/E D A/C#
Bm Bm/A C#7
Just don't. Please don't.
2. This metaphor makes me cringe:
The chorus for want of a better word goes like this:
Crucified,
Laid behind a stone
You lived to die,
Rejected and alone
Like a rose,
Trampled on the ground (err, what?)
You took the fall,
And thought of me
Above all
Like a rose, trampled on the ground? What?
I grow roses. I like every other rose grower, grows them because of their inherant beauty. I'm wondering if Michael W Smith actually read through Isaiah 53.
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
- Isaiah 53:2-3 (NIV)
Rejected and alone? Most certainly. Inherent beauty? No, but rather "no beauty" and "nothing in his appearance that we should desire him". Like a rose? I scarcely think not.
3. The whole Hook is wrong - the main cut and thrust of this:
You took the fall,
And thought of me
Above all
Really? I can prove otherwise.
Christ's first purpose, i.e. his reason for being was NOT to save sinners.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
- John 18:36-37
The first purpose of Christ, and indeed the first purpose of God (remember, that Jesus IS God), is to bring glory to Himself. His prime purpose in coming to Earth and being born as a man was to establish His Kingdom.
Now I know that I'm splitting hairs here, and indeed I do so quite deliberately, for even 99% correct is still 1% wrong. I do believe that it was Paul who told us to watch our life and doctrine closely and to persevere in them.
If Jesus is God, and his first purpose is to bring glory to himself, then it follows that his first thought, that is the thought that is "Above All" is NOT us.
If it is right for man to have the glory of God as his goal, can it be wrong for God to have the same goal? If man can have no higher purpose than God’s glory, how can God? If it is wrong for man to seek a lesser end than this, it would be wrong for God, too. The reason it cannot be right for man to live for himself, as if he were God, is because he is not God. Those who insist that God should not seek His glory in all things are really asking that He cease to be God. And there is no greater blasphemy than to will God out of existence.
- JI Packer
When Jesus was in the upper room praying before his execution on the cross, where was his first thought? It wasn't for "me" as the song "Above All" makes out:
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
- John 17:1-5
Jesus' first thought, ie the one he thought of "Above All" was Himself and His Father, God. This is a case of glory being directed to the proper place at the proper time just like it always had done, and always will do.
Now I know that this sounds inherently selfish, but again you have to remember that the Godhead is a) triune (and therefore this becomes a strange matter of semantics), and b) deserves that position by virtue that He is the premier being. God IS selfish, and quite rightly so.
Of course I realise that Mr Smith was trying to express gratitude to God*, and that is an entirely noble end but, hideously flawed. I would even suggest it is bordering on arrogant to think that Christ would think of us over His Father.
* Aside: As a songwriter, you have a certain responsibility to make sure that what you write is correct. If you write songs that congregations are going to sing, you are in effect putting words in their mouths - think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment