[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

Youch. Maybe I'm just a little more realistic than you as to the saintlihood of the saints.

I wouldn't say more realistic. I'd say either arrogant or selective. Obviously, I've read through the entirety of Scripture several times. I know the specific sins of the greats of the faith. Still, to wit:

David was a murderer and an adulterer, after all. If he was a "man after God's own heart," then surely I stand a chance at meriting the same title.

Is the Bathsheba Incident the only thing we can reference? I'm terrified to be judged by Nate's standards. Obviously, by them, Lincoln was a bad president because he believed blacks were inferior. That one character flaws ruins him as a person.

Obviously, a sin is a sin. One sin means you're deserving of Hell. Regardless, Scripture still clearly holds up and praises specific individuals as special models of faith, despite their flaws.

David also returned the Ark of the Covenant to the Lord, wrote most of the Psalms, delivered the tradition of wisdom that became the Proverbs, stood up against a corrupt king and lived on the lam all the while, was allowed to eat the sacred bread in the temple, was the only man in the Israelite army capable of standing up in faith to a Philistine arch-warrior, etc. etc. etc.

Similarly, I'm not entirely convinced that (S)Paul didn't continue to be just as "heel-dragging" and "half-committed" after his conversion as he was before.

Right, he only spent a large part of his ministry with warrants over his head, in jail, etc. Please, build the case for me how Paul was half-committed. I'm really curious to read a minority opinion that doesn't show his post-conversion life as a complete turn-around.

Job's moral fiber had him telling his wife effectively to shove off and go to hell and ended with a four-ish-chapter reprimand from God Almighty.

Oh, for pity's sake, Nate, she told him to curse God. Are you going to take the Savior to task for calling Peter "Satan?"

I'm not convinced when I read Scripture that these guys were really that much different from me... and I take great great comfort in that.

Interestingly enough, not every character in the Bible on the side of good appears in Paul's "By Faith" chapter. So I think it's safe to say that there are some characters in the Bible who overall maintained greater character. So, yes, while it is encouraging that these characters are flawed, I am not so arrogant as to focus on their flaws and not note that they are great men of faith who can declare more things about their devotion to God than you or I can.

Not all of the Psalms are meant for corporate worship, obviously... or even for worship at all. I wouldn't claim we should emulate all of them. I was just making a point.

Then your point is unclear. You quoted two verses without making a final ruling. So, do you think it is okay for believers who are weak or half-commited to regularly sing statements that claim they are 100% devoted?

Originally Posted by Sean

But was David trusting in the steadfast love of the Lord during the Bathsheba incident and cover-up? Even with David I don't think you can say those songs are absolutely literally true.

So we have one incident where David wasn't trusting the steadfast love of the Lord, weighed against many, many more where he was.

Beyond that, being a "Scripture alone" sort of guy, I can't recall a verse that says that all of the Psalms are literally true. I'm quite prepared to accept that David may have been ********ting us, or, more likely (as you note) that was a cultural expression of hyperbolic declaration of one's desires. Our culture does not operate that way. Thus, when I sing "I trust in You always," in our culture, it's literal.

Or a room full of people at various spiritual levels can say.

Well, exactly. Even with Nate and yourself pointing out the one major episode of sin in David's life, we have to note that Abraham had similar things and the Apostles still treat him as a special saint of extraordinary faith. So obviously, what's true for the spiritual giants is not true for us.

[Nate]

You and I are very different.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I wouldn't say more realistic. I'd say either arrogant or selective.

Youch again, man.

Seriously, you don't get the picture reading through Scripture that we're supposed to feel like we can be included in this great story at the same level as these great guys? Are all the stories of the saints really meant to make us feel somehow lower than them spiritually?

I've always got the feeling from Scripture, considering that almost every single person who is praised for righteousness in Scripture has at least as many criticisms and stories of atrocious moral behavior attributed to them as well, that Christianity isn't just for "saints."

Obviously, I've read through the entirety of Scripture several times. I know the specific sins of the greats of the faith. Still, to wit:



Is the Bathsheba Incident the only thing we can reference? I'm terrified to be judged by Nate's standards. Obviously, by them, Lincoln was a bad president because he believed blacks were inferior. That one character flaws ruins him as a person.

Of course we can look at David's triumphs and Lincoln's courage to stand for freedom against his personal prejudices, but that doesn't mean that they're any better than us. I may not always act as altruistically as Lincoln, but I don't think he was necessarily a more righteous man than I.

Right, he only spent a large part of his ministry with warrants over his head, in jail, etc. Please, build the case for me how Paul was half-committed. I'm really curious to read a minority opinion that doesn't show his post-conversion life as a complete turn-around.

Oh, for pity's sake, Nate, she told him to curse God. Are you going to take the Savior to task for calling Peter "Satan?"

It doesn't interest me that much to go into minutia. I just find it hard to imagine that they became perfect men.

Interestingly enough, not every character in the Bible on the side of good appears in Paul's "By Faith" chapter. So I think it's safe to say that there are some characters in the Bible who overall maintained greater character. So, yes, while it is encouraging that these characters are flawed, I am not so arrogant as to focus on their flaws and not note that they are great men of faith who can declare more things about their devotion to God than you or I can.

Wow. You take something very different away from the "Hall of Faith" than I do, I suppose. You look at it and think "These men are better than me," but I look at it and think "Wow, I can be like that too." Scripture was written to give us hope, not make us feel worthless.

Then your point is unclear. You quoted two verses without making a final ruling. So, do you think it is okay for believers who are weak or half-commited to regularly sing statements that claim they are 100% devoted?

Yes. Absolutely. The best way to become something is to pretend to already be it.

Beyond that, being a "Scripture alone" sort of guy, I can't recall a verse that says that all of the Psalms are literally true. I'm quite prepared to accept that David may have been ********ting us, or, more likely (as you note) that was a cultural expression of hyperbolic declaration of one's desires. Our culture does not operate that way. Thus, when I sing "I trust in You always," in our culture, it's literal.

I'm not at all convinced about this cultural thing. People use hyperbole today all the time (irony intended, to make the point). I can't imagine that you as a writer are so out of touch with the language of the people to not see how common just this type of hyperbole is in our everyday speech.

Well, exactly. Even with Nate and yourself pointing out the one major episode of sin in David's life, we have to note that Abraham had similar things and the Apostles still treat him as a special saint of extraordinary faith. So obviously, what's true for the spiritual giants is not true for us.

I'm just not convinced that Scripture was written to make us feel that these "spiritual giants" were somehow on a higher plane than us, but rather written to give us shining examples of men just like us that somehow managed to get it right in spite of a bunch of screw-ups.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Maybe. However, aren't both of those attributed to David, a man after God's own heart?

For trivia's sake, Psalm 89 which I quoted was, in fact, by Ethan the Ezrahite, not David.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So we have one incident where David wasn't trusting the steadfast love of the Lord, weighed against many, many more where he was.

I'm not trying to make the point that David wasn't an amazing and faithful guy. So I'm not weighing anything. My understanding was that your point was that you don't feel comfortable saying things like "Every move I make is in you" because it isn't true. My point is pointing out the Bathsheba incident is to show that when David said "I trust in the steadfast love of God forever" it was equally untrue (if taken literally).

[Jordy3738]

I think more songs should say I love you directly to the Lord. Some times I just say it while leading worship. We say I love you to dogs, cats, husbands, sisters, why not in public directly to the Lord. We are supposed to love him with all or heart, especially through a heart of worship.

[Fugli]

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

Is it alright if Christian Music has phrases like "I Worship", or "I love you" in Worship songs?

It's a gray area, and not everyone will agree. For our purposes we sometimes separate worship songs from praise songs. Worship songs focus on what God does. We try to use them during worship services. Praise songs tend to focus more on our response to God, and we are more likely to use them to pull the worshiping community together before a service or as a postlude.

This is a blurb that I included on our most recent review CD:
"Like the psalms, modern worship music comes in many varieties, matching moods, points of view, and changing focus. One type of song is the personal message, telling the world how the singer will act, or what people in general should do. Another form is the worship song, letting us all know about the wonderful acts and love of God. A third type is the prayer, giving us information meant for God's consideration. Still another variety is the metaphor or parable, providing us a glimpse into what heaven and God may be like. Finally there is the narrative, giving voice to the biblical story."

Just keep in mind that often the distinctions are not clear, and the types of song often overlap. In the end, you can debate it until you're blue in the face. Don't allow indecision to paralyze you. Just do what you think/feel is right, and "sin boldly."

[Nate]

Hahahaha. Bump.

I love this thread, if only because I was so hard on Jeffrey, one of my favorite people on all of CGR.

[walkwjc]

This is something I've been working over in my mind for about a year now. I started leading worship with the thought that if a song had Jesus, God, or Holy in it, it was good to go. Now, seven years later I am more picky about the songs sung in worship, specials and before and after service.

Where I am at right now, and this seems to be just a tad bit at odds with my praise and worship team, is that for the 20 or 30 minutes that we set aside for 'worship' we will sing songs that are about God, what God has done, how great He is, ect, and the 'I love you' type songs can be sung as specials or to close service.

This is still in the evolutionary stages in my mind, and solely my personal preference but I feel that is what I'm supposed to do at this point.

I guess, for me some of this comes from the experience of being led in worship to sing many, many, 'I' songs and not enough 'worship' songs. So I want to sing more about what God has done, and less about what I am going to do for God. I am still studying to clarify this in the Word. Yep.