All posts by Darris Brock

Darris Brock is an ordained minister in the Christian Church. He is a past professor at Johnson University (Johnson Bible College) and is an elder and worship minister at Lighthouse Christian Church.

Heresy, apostasy, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage

There is a purge going on in the Church and it is one that we should acknowledge, embrace, and encourage. No issue has divided the church as clearly as the issue of homosexual acceptance and its manifestation in same-sex marriage. This purge has been mostly a one-way affair in that theologically liberal denominations such as the PCUSA (my former denomination) have been stacking the political structure so as to favor liberalization trends.

Bad Moves

The PCUSA is not the only offender as it has been a popular trend among mainline denominations. This trend has caused people to leave for more traditional churches or for existing congregations to simply acknowledge the political realities of their denomination and affiliate with another denomination or start their own conservative branch. The PCUSA has lost 47% of its membership since 1967 and this article lists the decline and increase of other denominations. Being a minister in the Restoration Movement I’m always interested in the Christian Church, Church of Christ, and Disciples of Christ churches. The Disciples have been trending liberal for years and have suffered a 67% decline since 1965 (these figures are as of 2012).

As theological liberals have seized power their churches have been purged of conservatives as they flee the sinking ship of Politically Correct Theology. The liberal churches fail to recognize that their theology is built upon the shifting sands of public opinion and peer pressure. It is not founded upon historical, solid biblical truth. Thus, it has no staying power and no attractiveness to a world that seeks stability amidst the storms of life. PCT only offers acceptance to those who conform to the thought de jour. If the winds of PCT ever shift so that it becomes popular to to dis-affirm homosexuality then those churches are going to find themselves in turmoil again.

Bad Words

Apostasy. Heresy. Disfellowship. Excommunication. These are all dirty words for many in the church today. They inherently bear a concept of harsh judgment in them and our pop-culture tells us to “judge not” (which seems to be the only portion of the Bible that many of them both know and affirm). But since the beginning of the Church there have been lines of discipline that could not be crossed without repercussions. Sexual sins have been matters of discipline and even excommunication from the outset.

The Apostle Paul affirms that sexual sins will exclude a person from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor. 6:9) and homosexual behavior is among those sins. He affirms that homosexual behavior is a fundamental rebellion against God; that it is a “sinful desire”; that it is a “degrading” of the human body; that it is a “shameful lust” and that the acts are “shameful acts” (Romans 1:18-32). In short, human beings who are in rebellion against God on the matter of homosexuality are under God’s wrath and condemnation (Romans 1:18). This is exactly where the liberal churches find themselves. They affirm what God condemns.

In the Corinthian church Paul had to confront “sexual immorality . . . of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate” (1 Cor. 5:1). This was a heterosexual sin. The perversity of it was that a man was sleeping with his father’s wife (that is, his step-mother). Was the church in Corinth outraged at this? No. They were proud. Paul tells them that they should have “gone into mourning” and put the man into a state of disfellowship. The hope would be that he would repent so “that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord”.

Paul’s teaching on how to handle sexual immorality may not have been clearly understood by the Corinthian church as 1 Cor. 5:9-10 may indicate. So Paul clearly states what he expects when it comes to sexual immorality within the church: “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people” (1 Cor. 5:11, emphasis mine). In fact, Paul relies upon Scripture when he commands the church to “Expel the wicked person from among you” 1 Cor. 5:13 (cf. Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7).

Genesis sets forth God’s intentional creation of mankind as male and female with gender complementarity as the essential component. The union of husband and wife is for the purpose of reuniting the male with what was created from him so that the two can carry out the divine will of procreating, ruling, and subduing the earth. Jesus affirms this natural and customary form of marriage as well as limits it to only two participants in a lifelong and monogamous marriage.

Humanity crossed a line which had never been crossed before when it began wiping out male/female distinctions and deeming homosexuals as capable of being married. Not even the pagans had ever done such a thing in all of human history. But like the Corinthians, the liberal churches have crossed several lines that had never been crossed before in the church. They affirmed homosexuality; they approved of homosexual marriage; they ordained practicing homosexuals into their leadership.

Biblical Response

The liberal churches have been cutting off the conservatives for a long time. It is now time for the conservatives to turn the tables and do the same and even more, in accordance with Scripture. The lines of demarcation within the church are clear but they need to be made more distinct. It is time for all the independent churches and denominations that support biblical marriage to do what the Apostle Paul would have us do: disfellowship anyone who claims to be a believer but affirms homosexual practice and/or same-sex marriage. Those of us on the right side of the issue need to call this what it is: heresy. Those who support it have become rebels against God and arguably apostates since “. . . they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32). They have created a cult of sexual perversion and masquerade it as an acceptable form of Christianity.

It is only through boldness and a firm stance on Scripture that the Church can distinguish itself from the culture around it. Those people who refuse proper instruction and sound doctrine on this issue need to be cut off from their respective congregations until such a time as they repent. Churches and denominations that affirm homosexual practice need to be told “No. You are not Christian anymore.” Associations with such groups need to be severed.It is time to shun those who have created this cult of sexual perversion. Paul’s advice is harsh and it is intended to be harsh in order that it might shock the sinner into repentance. “Expel the wicked from among you.” Let the Church be purged of its heretics.

The New Delusional Times

Rational people are pulling their hair out over the same-sex “marriage” ruling by the Supreme Court. It defies all common sense and law. The one thing about marriage that has always been true is that the two getting married were not the “same”. While its supporters celebrate as if the matter is finally settled the truth is that it has not settled anything. In fact, it has only served to stir the pot. It has started a war. All groups supporting natural marriage, and Christian groups particularly, have been galvanized in a way not previously possible. Heretofore, there was a glimmer of hope in the minds of some that SCOTUS might do the right thing so the issue was mentally sort of set aside. Those who watch the Court closely predicted otherwise based upon Justice Kennedy’s past actions and the expectations of the four liberal-Democrat appointed Justices. With the reality of the ruling, there is now no middle ground on which to stand. You are either for natural marriage or for the unnatural mockery that the Court imposed by judicial fiat.

“Welcome to . . . the show where everything is made up and the points don’t matter.”

While all of the sound arguments have been and still remain on the side of natural marriage, the wave of irrational and emotional thinking among the movers and shakers supporting SSM has gained the upper hand at the moment. We live in delusional times when the coupling of two men can be considered the same as the coupling of a man and a woman. It is an absurdity that boggles the rational mind since it defies natural biology, all of marriage history, all of common law history, and the Constitution itself (see my previous article). Even the fact that the states voted 32-2 to support one-man-one-woman marriage and the fact that polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans still think marriage should be between one man and one woman it simply didn’t matter in the wake of the political and media emotionally-charged onslaught.

Argue Not With a Fool

In light of these facts, I would encourage my fellow Christians to not waste much time in debate with supporters of unnatural marriage. For them, it was never about doing the right thing. It was always about pushing a twisted agenda. Had they sought legitimacy they would have respected the democratic process and gained victories where they could until the groundswell was such that all the states adopted their position. But legitimacy was never the goal. The goal was to get “gay marriage” by hook or by crook. The will of the people be damned. That is exactly what was accomplished. It took bullying tactics, lies, propaganda, distortion, circumvention of the voters, and a corrupt judicial majority in order to win. There is nothing noble about that type of perverse and intellectually vacant victory but the supporters do not care. Because of that, it is simply ridiculous to argue with them.

Argue Where It Counts

There are a few people on the margins that really had never invested much thought in this matter until now. It has become a topic that our church youth group wanted to discuss. This is a great time to explain that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sins that lead to eternal damnation. It is a great time to talk about sexual restraint. That is a topic with which our world doesn’t want to deal. The world is all about sexual license, excess, and normalizing perversions. But the Bible teaches a very restrained form of sexuality. Sex is limited to only a husband and wife. Every other form of sexual encounter is considered “sexual immorality” and leads to the same sad fate as those who practice homosexuality. It is also a time to teach that God loves people with homosexual temptations and desires to redeem them along with everyone else. Homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin and the homosexual person should be allowed to join the church just like anyone else. This is a group with which the arguments can be persuasive and it is important to teach sound church doctrine on sexual ethics regardless of the SCOTUS ruling.

Similarly, there are immature Christians in the church who have never really faced this issue square on. Now they have to decide which way to go. Those are worthy conversations to have. But the guy with the rainbow flag; the lady who thinks it is about “equality”; the co-worker who says “love wins” or the Facebook friend who put a rainbow over their profile picture is not a good investment of your time and energy. The art of critical thinking and sound argumentation does not abide in such people. They are the emotional “sound bite” type who think with their feelings rather than their minds. In Transgenderism, New Coke, Snake Oil, and other Dumb Ideas I have suggested that other approaches are more persuasive to that audience.

Rational Solutions

Delusional times call for rational answers because reality is still real even if the population is deluded. A drunken man is in no less danger of death trying to cross a city street simply because he believes he is in possession of his faculties and using good judgment. We, the sober-minded adults in the room, still must attempt to constrain the deluded and shield as many as we can from danger. Like drunks, there is no doubt that they will continue to lash out at us as they have in the past, maddened with power, and emboldened now by their shallow victory. The truth is that those people engaging in homosexual acts are still engaging in sexual practices that are unhealthy for the body, mind, and soul. The Bible still labels it a sin, tells us it is the sign of a depraved mind, and it will end in divine condemnation. God made the human body and he has made his mind known to us regarding sexual activity. It is up to us to conform to his will. He is highly discriminatory and totally intolerant to unrepentant sin. That is truth. So remember that the next time you pray, “May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

God, injustice, and gay marriage

God Hates Injustice

One does not have to read very far into the Bible to understand that God hates injustice. Humanity is warned in the second chapter of the Bible not to eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet, in the very next chapter the fruit is eaten and God imposes His justice.

The prophets are quite emphatic about justice. It seems that the rich and powerful were corrupting justice (imagine that!). Merchants were using scales set to rob their clients. The poor, the widowed, and the orphaned were exploited and robbed.

 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.

Isaiah 10:1-2

It is from passages such as these that we know that God hates the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage decision giving a veil of legality to the mockery that is homosexual “marriage”. This decision is in the category of “unjust laws” which Isaiah describes.

Against the Constitution

As the minority correctly noted, this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution. It was completely lawless. In fact, just two years prior the same court split the same way over the DOMA law (Defense of Marriage Act) where the majority argued that the Supreme Court had traditionally left almost everything about defining marriage up to the individual states. Had there been any consistency within the Court it would have dismissed this case as being unworthy of hearing on the grounds that the states have historically been left to define marriage on their own. In fact, 32 states had defined marriage on their own and decided it was between a man and woman. Two states recently had decided by vote to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. The process was at work.

This ruling is judicial activism at its worst (see Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon’s insightful comments). It usurps the democratic process put forth by the states and it usurps the development and passage of law through the congressional branch and the legislative branch. As such, it is” legislating from the bench” which is fundamentally unconstitutional. Such bad laws have been overlooked in the past, such as the Dred Scott decision. Abraham Lincoln acted as if it didn’t exist. The Supreme Court is only one-third of the government and yet in the 20th century it has been granted the imaginary power of supreme authority. It was not so in the beginning and never intended to be so by our Founders. This is simply an unconstitutional decision in abeyance of the law which was made for the purpose of pushing a social agenda.

Against History

In addition, there is no support for homosexual marriage in any country in all of human history prior to the late 20th century. It is one of the universal truths that marriage has always been between a heterosexual couple or in the case of polygamists between a heterosexual male or female and their heterosexual wives or husbands. In either event it was a coupling of heterosexuals together. Marriage was not created in the United States. It was not created by any government. It developed as an arrangement between parents for their children and was simply recognized by governments over time. The number of people and the age for marriage have been somewhat fluid across cultures but the fact that marriage was a heterosexual affair was never questioned. So to flout all of human history shows the arrogance of the majority and their complete divorce from the evidence of the universal worldwide precedence. .

Against Biology

Similarly, the Court proclaimed that there is no fundamental difference between males and females. A male or female marriage partner can be interchanged at will. The idea that anal or oral intercourse is the same as vaginal intercourse is bizarre. Only one has procreative powers. Only one provides gender complementarity. It is even more bizarre than Bruce Jenner claiming he has become female with a few nips and tucks, some makeup, and a new wardrobe. This decision is an abomination of the biology of the human body on par with a man claiming that he is a deciduous tree. In any sane world this would be considered crazy and its advocates certifiably insane. There is a basic biological component to marriage that has always existed. Couples married with the primary intent and expectation of raising a family and providing themselves as models for future generations. “I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad” is a line from a song but it expresses the way children learn from their parents and shape their expectations and goals for the future. Homosexuality is a dead-end street in this regard. There is no “next generation” without heterosexuality. Such “marriage” is removed from the possibility of naturally producing any children which means that legal benefits and selfish sexual lusts are the only reasons remaining to justify the marriage. So the Court decided, without any biological credibility, to proclaim a rural dead-end street the same thing as an urban super-highway.

Against Religions

Marriage has historically been valued across every major religion. Why? Because they have recognized that the family unit was crucial to sustaining society. This has been so widely agreed upon that we can call it a fundamental and universal religious tenet. The Judeo-Christian religions and their offshoots have held that it was the Divine will of God since creation for men and women to marry. Religions that recognized the New Testament as authoritative have even limited marriage to that of a single man and a single woman. It is upon this model that Western civilization has turned. To turn away from the sound advice of such broad religious history is ill-advised at best and diabolical at it worst. In fact, with this Court, it seems that diabolical is the best description because it contravened Western civilization’s fundamental religious doctrine that homosexuality should not be practiced, drew it up from the gutter, glorified it, and raised it to the same level as traditional marriage. When religious people across denominations and theisms agree that traditional marriage is a good and noble thing the Court should pay attention. But attention is the last thing in which this Court was interested. Had they paid attention to the religious community, to the biology, to the heterosexual nature of marriage, or to the Constitution they would have unanimously ruled to support traditional marriage. Instead, the majority decided to legalize perversion. It’s not marriage. It is a mockery at every level and the height of injustice.  “Woe to those who make unjust laws.”  God is not pleased.

Transgenderism, New Coke, Snake Oil and Other Dumb Ideas

There is so much wrong with the idea of transgenderism that it seemingly defies full expression. As the discussion goes on the focus has shifted in some circles to those reacting to the Bruce Jenner affair. I wrote the following in response to a friend who thought that Christians should stop posting memes regarding the Bruce Jenner transgender issue. Somehow it was considered in poor humor, lacking compassion, and not comporting with the way Jesus would have acted. I began by writing a fictional piece of Scripture imagining what Jesus might have said to a transgender man. Since Jews of the time were banned from cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5), homosexuality was not practiced among the Jews, and there was no equivalent to hormonal therapy and sex-reassignment surgery it is not surprising that Jesus never encountered such a person. Hopefully that sets the scene for what follows.

“What is this? Do you think that by changing the form you change the substance? If a husband changes clothes with his wife does he then bear children for her? Though he grow out his hair and adorn himself with makeup and perfume can he suckle the little ones? No! Are you so blind that you cannot see that what God has made cannot be changed? For it is written, ‘in the beginning, God made them male and female.’ Are you, O mortal man, therefore, greater than the God who made you? Can you change the nature of a man by your own power? Wheat does not become a tare nor a tare become wheat though they grow side by side in the field. So it is with men and women. It would be far easier for an ox to become a donkey than for a man to become a woman. These are the things that were done by the pagans who did not know God. For the Law says, ‘A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.’ Therefore, repent! Go home! Cut your hair and change your clothes! Wash away all feminine vestiges. Adorn yourself as a man! Be robed in the glory of God according to your creation.”

So far I haven’t seen anything that hasn’t amused me and nothing vulgar or even mean-spirited. Jesus had a sense of humor, and a lot of it was dark with sarcasm and irony. He also enjoyed puns. Jesus never encountered the weirdness of calling a male a female. Leviticus 22:5 had a strict prohibition against cross-dressing. Had he ever encountered such, I’m quite sure it would have appalled him as the blurring of gender distinctions in Corinth did the Apostle Paul. Jesus once asked, “Can a leopard change its spots?” That was a rhetorical and humorous question. The answer was obviously “No” and I wouldn’t be surprised if people chuckled when they heard it. “Can a man turn into a woman?” is an infinitely more bizarre and equally rhetorical and humorous question in any context. The absurdity of it should be mocked because it is outrageous. It holds a minimalistic view of femininity: enlarge breasts, take some hormones, give yourself a feminine name – magically you are a woman! Ignore the fact that you still have a penis and testicles. Ignore your psychological disorder. Ignore the research that shows gender transformation doesn’t work. Ignore the fact that hospitals like Johns-Hopkins quit doing such surgeries. Ignore the fact that you can’t change your XY chromosomes to XX chromosomes. Ignore the fact that you will never have ovaries or a womb, never experience menstruation, hot flashes, or become pregnant. But still claim that you are a woman! This is OUTRAGEOUSLY absurd!Capture


We laughed at this stuff growing up because it was ridiculous. We heuristically knew that there were intrinsic differences between males and females. We laughed at the Three Stooges when Curly was dressed like a woman. We laughed at performances of a Womanless Wedding where men played all the parts because it was absurd. We laughed when Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari masqueraded as women in the sitcom Bosom Buddies. Weird Al Yankovic tickled our funny bones with his cross-dressing truck driving song. The absurdity of the whole situation needs to be ridiculed. The social stigma on this action needs to be reinforced. The absurdity needs to be taught to the people who think it is normal, laudable, brave, and courageous.

Humor is a great way to open a dialogue. In the posts I’ve made and the ones that I’ve seen my friends make, there is a call for Bruce Jenner to get help. There is an educational aspect that says “this is not normal”. There is the expression that being female requires more than minimal outward changes. This is a dialogue that is needed at present as there is a popular wave of sentiment which permits anything no matter how irrational or contrary to fact.

I can only imagine the puzzled look and what Jesus might have said had he been confronted with this situation. I’m sure it would have been priceless. In short, I don’t see Christians being less than compassionate to Bruce Jenner. All I’ve seen have called for serious therapy and restoration for a man they view as very, very mentally ill.

The Church needs to distinguish itself very clearly on these matters because God does hold human beings responsible for their sexual behavior. He created them distinctly male and female and has expressed his desire that they remain so. Concepts such as transgenderism (also transracialism) should be mocked and ridiculed because they are outrageously absurd in the extreme. The people who would do these things need to be met with ministerial compassion. Were I ever to meet Bruce Jenner I would approach him in that fashion. As a public figure and through his media appearances he has made ill-informed theological statements regarding his transformation. These leave him open to public critique and ridicule. As things stand now, our society is open to absurdities that not even the Twilight Zone ever imagined. Secularists have used humor to mock religion and done so successfully for years. Taking such an obvious freak show as the Bruce Jenner affair (and the transracial idiocy now foisted upon us) and turning it around to mock secular society is very appropriate and, I think, effective in the long run. The emperor has no clothes. These things need to be said publicly. Desperately.

“Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation.”
Proverbs 26:5 NLT

Ripping Worship

Occasionally someone writes a piece about how terrible certain worship music is for one reason or another. The latest piece to come to my attention is this one. The piece urges us to stop singing ten rather popular songs for reasons ranging from lack of theological depth to ambiguity of object. Such titles as In the Secret, Above All, Draw Me Close, and the currently popular Oceans and others are all deficient.

Most of the complaints were pedantic in my opinion. Draw Me Close was criticized because it doesn’t identify who is to be doing the drawing – God or Jesus. To this I say, “Context people! Context!” Anyone familiar with modern Christianity should know the implied object is Jesus. You are in a church and the common object of seeing face to face is Jesus, not God. But does it matter if it is God? Does it matter if the song can be sung outside the church in a bar? Perhaps part of the author’s goal was to write a song that could cross over and reach another target audience and so introduce that audience to Jesus over time. The complaint seems ridiculous.

What we are seeing in such discussions is usually a complaint from the crusty old theological class which seems to think that every song has to have the content of A Mighty Fortress is Our God versus a laity that is moved by the spiritually inspiring music and “shallow” lyrics.

This harkens back to the days when we debated whether guitars and drums should be allowed in our churches along with those shallow praise choruses or which hymns were theologically sound enough to be in the church-approved hymnal.  It all strikes me as another unnecessary exclusionary boundary: we can only have one type of music in the church and that is theologically rich music! Only now we have shifted the debate from style to substance with the assumption that only substantive songs are worthwhile. Not so!

Even a cursory overview of music history or contemporary practice tells us that people are touched by a number of styles and presentations. There is no one “right” way to do church worship music. One of my professors in Bible College told the class that at his stage in life he most enjoyed going into a particular church that had a great organ playing and a choir all hidden away. He could sit and absorb the music in quiet meditation until he was spiritually refreshed and ready to leave.

When I read this latest piece attacking worship music content I jokingly commented that we just need to remove all lyrics so that we don’t offend anyone. Then we can change the debate to whether E-minor is a spiritual chord or the chord of the Devil!  But instrumental music has long been part of the spiritual scene. Any number of classical composers wrote instrumental pieces for use in church worship. It is commonplace in many churches to have instrumental prelude, closing, or communion music. No one challenges such song selections on the basis of lyrical content and yet many of these songs used in this fashion have lyrics.

As the worship leader and an elder at our church, I don’t have many opportunities to visit other venues for worship.  But in the past couple of years I’ve participated in Gathering Knoxville, a group of people who have put denominational differences aside in order to gather for worship and prayer at different participating churches.  Some prominent members of the group fall into the broad category of “charismatic” and they sing some original songs and songs I don’t do at our contemporary church. I have found myself sitting and listening to simple lyrics sung repetitively and absolutely feeling the heart of worship. One example will suffice. David McDaniel does a song he wrote titled House of Prayer. The lyrics are simple and few based upon Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7. “My house shall be a house of prayer” is repeated about four times and then a couple of lines of “And you shall see my glory there” with minor variations. Yet I find myself captivated by that song with as little as just a simple guitar accompaniment and David singing.  In fact, I find my mind thinking of Jesus cleansing the Temple in Jerusalem of the moneychangers. He called them a “den of robbers” in one of his less charitable moments of anger. I remember that he is quoting from the Hebrew prophet and then I think about the current church building we are in and how it should be a house of prayer. In fact, we are gathered there for the purpose of intercessory prayer and we are taking that back to the individual churches where we serve.

A lot of things roll through my mind as we sing that song. Usually they are the same images and thoughts but they never get old!  The song is scripturally rich but not theologically deep. Yet in sharpens the focus on prayer, reminds us of Scripture and, implicitly, our relationship to God. It also simply has a good “spiritual feel” to it so that you feel closer to God through the experience. Isn’t that the result we want people to have?

Perhaps the problem isn’t so much the depth of the songs but the expectations and desires of the congregant. It is a bit of church consumerism to criticize the songs just because you don’t like them or you don’t find them moving. If your requirements for a successful song are four-part harmony and a tight-knit-five-piece band then you are going to be left wanting along with the person who wants a theologically rich song. Consider those around you. Are they being moved? Do they like the songs? The Apostle Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians about the edification of the church. Does the music edify the church on the whole? If so, then leave it alone. It serves its function.

In picking our songs I value two things: praise and worship. God is worthy of praise and worship so we should give it to Him musically.  We do a lot of upbeat music because that, to me, is praise and worship – generally speaking. We also do slow songs because there is a beauty and a worshipful, emotional connection in those that cannot be attained in the faster music. This week we have added Oceans, not because it is a theologically rich song but because a lot of Christian people find it moving and comforting.  As many times as I’ve heard it on the radio I still don’t know the lyrics. But when I read them online it reminded me of someone who desires to trust Jesus enough to walk on the water, so to speak, and devote their life to him. I actually found that a good thought and not unlike other songs we sing where we desire to give our all to God in some way. I like the song and it is suitable for  quiet moments in the worship service. Yet I don’t love the song like I do other songs but not everything is about what I want. It is not a good congregational song but it is good for the congregation to hear. The song edifies the church as a whole and it is pleasant for me as well.  Like the Apostle Paul, I can shelve my desires so that others might be served.

The demand for theologically rich songs seems to me to be poorly focused and ill conceived. It assumes that people need such songs in order to be spiritually fed and yet that is demonstrably not the case. Song lyrics are also not the magical solution to fix ill-educated congregants. I think of the song Agnus Dei and how beautiful and moving it is and yet how simple and repetitive the lyrics are with only fifteen different words. Yet Michael W. Smith has a 10:16 version of this song and no one seems to mind. Everyone loves the Hallelujah Chorus and yet lyrically it is simple. I can find no fault in such things so long as they edify the body of Christ.