Thoughts on songs that speak from God’s perspective?

It seems somewhat common for Christian songs, metal and otherwise, to speak from God’s POV. I Am by Theocracy is one example. What do you think about the appropriateness of this? While I am sure (in Christian music) it is generally done from a position of respect and intended to reflect a biblical position of what God might say, it also seems pretty presumptuous to me, especially when the words are not directly quoted from the Bible. What do you think about this?
(To be honest I have always thought the song I Am would have been better as You Are)

Not big on it unless it’s pretty directly lifted from Scripture. I don’t necessarily have a real consistent standard on this, but in general, I’d advise against it.

Same as Pethead. If they're quoting Scripture, great. If it's pretty close, that is fine. But Theocracy's I Am is a great example of speaking from God's perspective done poorly. Imo it actually sounds rather pantheistic, as though everything is God, be it rain, bread, melodies, or a child. I understand what they were trying to do, but they did it very poorly.

I'd take things a step farther as well and say that I am not a fan of "worship" lyrics in metal or any other style of music. I would much rather the lyrics be more along the lines of preaching, exhortation, storytelling, etc. God gave us the Psalms for his worship, and we should not sing anything else to him in the context of worship. It is for this reason that I rarely listen to Grave Declaration these days, even though I really appreciate their musical style.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:Same as Pethead. If they're quoting Scripture, great. If it's pretty close, that is fine. But Theocracy's I Am is a great example of speaking from God's perspective done poorly. Imo it actually sounds rather pantheistic, as though everything is God, be it rain, bread, melodies, or a child. I understand what they were trying to do, but they did it very poorly.

I'd take things a step farther as well and say that I am not a fan of "worship" lyrics in metal or any other style of music. I would much rather the lyrics be more along the lines of preaching, exhortation, storytelling, etc. God gave us the Psalms for his worship, and we should not sing anything else to him in the context of worship. It is for this reason that I rarely listen to Grave Declaration these days, even though I really appreciate their musical style.

I tend to agree, although I don’t think Theocracy was promoting any form of pantheism, a lot of the comparisons were meant to be metaphorical (like the way Jesus called Himself the bread of life, he wasn’t talking about physical bread). I don’t agree however that the Psalms are the only appropriate songs to sing in worship, nothing in the Bible indicates that. When it comes to congregational worship in church some music styles are certainly more fitting than others, and as much as I like metal it would not fit well in congregational worship in church. But there are plenty of non-psalm songs that do fit there, like the classic hymns

seth wrote:
I tend to agree, although I don’t think Theocracy was promoting any form of pantheism, a lot of the comparisons were meant to be metaphorical (like the way Jesus called Himself the bread of life, he wasn’t talking about physical bread). I don’t agree however that the Psalms are the only appropriate songs to sing in worship, nothing in the Bible indicates that. When it comes to congregational worship in church some music styles are certainly more fitting than others, and as much as I like metal it would not fit well in congregational worship in church. But there are plenty of non-psalm songs that do fit there, like the classic hymns

Yeah, I don't think they were trying to promote pantheism, but that's the vibe I get from it, since not all the metaphors they used are pulled from Scripture.

My view on worship is definitely not popular, but I believe Scripture teaches that we are to do exactly what God commands in worship, nothing more and nothing less. This view is called the regulative principle of worship, but that would probably be better discussed in the Theology Realm (and already has been to some extent, but with more of a focus on the topic of musical instruments rather than Psalmody).

I agree with half of the regulative principle, that Christians are obligated to follow any commands God has given regarding worship. The other half I do not agree with, that anything not explicitly commanded by God is prohibited. The only time something like this might have applied would be under Old Testament law, when God gave very specific instructions for ceremonial worship. A major reason for this was because, before Christ, mankind was separated from God and not allowed to approach Him except under very strict guidelines. Since Christ came, however, believers can boldly stand before God in worship since Jesus has bridged that separation. This is why God didn’t give us a “new Torah” of strict ceremonial worship laws to follow in the church age. Obviously anything God has commanded against or called sinful is off-limits, but since the coming of Christ legalism and strict ceremonialism are no longer the framework for worship. 
(Since I started the thread and it is somewhat related I don’t mind discussing this here, mods let me know if I’m out of line)

There is a term for the view that you have as well. I think it is called the normative principle of worship, but I don't remember for sure whether that is the correct name.

While I obviously agree that the ceremonies of the Old Covenant are done away with in the New, the character of God has not changed. New Covenant worship looks different and is much simpler than Old, but still must be ordered according to Scripture. The purity of worship is ultimately a moral issue, derived from the second commandment, and the moral law is an expression of the character of God, and God does not change. That is why we still have warnings not to misuse the Lord's Supper, for example.

You are right, God does not change, but our status in regards to Him has changed with the coming of Christ. Before, we were separated from him by sin and could only approach Him like a peasant approaching a king, with great formalism. Now that is no longer the case, since that separation has been broken. God has given certain commands regarding worship, like you mentioned with the Lord’s Supper, but I don’t think there’s reason to add to His commands things that aren’t there (like the idea that anything He didn’t specifically command is prohibited). I agree the second commandment certainly does still apply though, and churches that use images in worship are in violation of it.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:There is a term for the view that you have as well. I think it is called the normative principle of worship, but I don't remember for sure whether that is the correct name.

While I obviously agree that the ceremonies of the Old Covenant are done away with in the New, the character of God has not changed. New Covenant worship looks different and is much simpler than Old, but still must be ordered according to Scripture. The purity of worship is ultimately a moral issue, derived from the second commandment, and the moral law is an expression of the character of God, and God does not change. That is why we still have warnings not to misuse the Lord's Supper, for example.

That’s the correct term.

I appreciate the different perspectives but, personally, I'm cool with whatever. In fact, I'd never noticed it except it's been brought up twice recently: 1) here, and 2) by my brother-in-law about a newer worship song they sang in church.

Maybe the reason it doesn't bother me is that whenever we as Christians preach, evangelize, tell a story, etc., we are representing God's heart and character to the world. I know some of you think it's a bigger deal when you're writing it as if God is speaking, but I don't see a difference. To me, theology is theology whether it's written in 1st person or not.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:Same as Pethead. If they're quoting Scripture, great. If it's pretty close, that is fine. But Theocracy's I Am is a great example of speaking from God's perspective done poorly. Imo it actually sounds rather pantheistic, as though everything is God, be it rain, bread, melodies, or a child. I understand what they were trying to do, but they did it very poorly.

I'd take things a step farther as well and say that I am not a fan of "worship" lyrics in metal or any other style of music. I would much rather the lyrics be more along the lines of preaching, exhortation, storytelling, etc. God gave us the Psalms for his worship, and we should not sing anything else to him in the context of worship. It is for this reason that I rarely listen to Grave Declaration these days, even though I really appreciate their musical style.

On your last paragraph, how do you define specifically “worship” lyrics? The Psalms themselves don’t always fit a narrow “vertical” definition of worship lyrics. (E.g. Psalm 133).

Pethead wrote:Not big on it unless it’s pretty directly lifted from Scripture. I don’t necessarily have a real consistent standard on this, but in general, I’d advise against it.

Ditto

seth wrote:You are right, God does not change, but our status in regards to Him has changed with the coming of Christ. Before, we were separated from him by sin and could only approach Him like a peasant approaching a king, with great formalism. Now that is no longer the case, since that separation has been broken. God has given certain commands regarding worship, like you mentioned with the Lord’s Supper, but I don’t think there’s reason to add to His commands things that aren’t there (like the idea that anything He didn’t specifically command is prohibited). I agree the second commandment certainly does still apply though, and churches that use images in worship are in violation of it.

It is true that there was a great formalism under the Old Covenant, and that we can now boldly approach the throne of grace and even refer to God as our Father, which is an amazing and incredible privilege. The veil of the temple was rent in twain at the death of Christ and we can now draw near. It is for this reason that worship under the New Covenant involves fewer outward ceremonies and is rather simplistic, but greater in glory. But I don't believe that any of this gives us creative license to import into the worship of God whatsoever we desire. I am not adding to God's commands by asserting this, as we find this principle in Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 12 in particular. This is really the underlying meaning of the second commandment. Much like how the sixth commandment is not just about not murdering, but ultimately about seeking the good of others and protecting life, and not hating one's brother.

100% agreed regarding images of God, which are not to be permitted. I would stretch it farther though and say that any attempt to depict Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, whether or not for the express purpose of worship, is a breach of that commandment.

Pethead wrote:On your last paragraph, how do you define specifically “worship” lyrics? The Psalms themselves don’t always fit a narrow “vertical” definition of worship lyrics. (E.g. Psalm 133).

All the Psalms (in addition to being the inspired word of God) are worship songs regardless of their lyrical content. When I mention "worship" lyrics in metal, I guess I mean that primarily based upon the intent of the artist, which can't necessarily be determined all that easily, so it is kind of a blurry line. What might sound like worship could actually be prayer. In general I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and the line there is definitely blurry. But whenever I worship God, in public or in private, on the Lord's Day or any other day, I only sing the Psalms.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

seth wrote:You are right, God does not change, but our status in regards to Him has changed with the coming of Christ. Before, we were separated from him by sin and could only approach Him like a peasant approaching a king, with great formalism. Now that is no longer the case, since that separation has been broken. God has given certain commands regarding worship, like you mentioned with the Lord’s Supper, but I don’t think there’s reason to add to His commands things that aren’t there (like the idea that anything He didn’t specifically command is prohibited). I agree the second commandment certainly does still apply though, and churches that use images in worship are in violation of it.

It is true that there was a great formalism under the Old Covenant, and that we can now boldly approach the throne of grace and even refer to God as our Father, which is an amazing and incredible privilege. The veil of the temple was rent in twain at the death of Christ and we can now draw near. It is for this reason that worship under the New Covenant involves fewer outward  ceremonies and is rather simplistic, but greater in glory. But I don't believe that any of this gives us creative license to import into the worship of God whatsoever we desire. I am not adding to God's commands by asserting this, as we find this principle in Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 12 in particular. This is really the underlying meaning of the second commandment. Much like how the sixth commandment is not just about not murdering, but ultimately about seeking the good of others and protecting life, and not hating one's brother.

100% agreed regarding images of God, which are not to be permitted. I would stretch it farther though and say that any attempt to depict Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, whether or not for the express purpose of worship, is a breach of that commandment.

Pethead wrote:On your last paragraph, how do you define specifically “worship” lyrics? The Psalms themselves don’t always fit a narrow “vertical” definition of worship lyrics. (E.g. Psalm 133).

All the Psalms (in addition to being the inspired word of God) are worship songs regardless of their lyrical content. When I mention "worship" lyrics in metal, I guess I mean that primarily based upon the intent of the artist, which can't necessarily be determined all that easily, so it is kind of a blurry line. What might sound like worship could actually be prayer. In general I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and the line there is definitely blurry. But whenever I worship God, in public or in private, on the Lord's Day or any other day, I only sing the Psalms.

I still don’t see how you come to that conclusion based on the second commandment. It forbids the worship of images, but does not in any way imply that ANY form of worship not explicitly detailed in Scripture, especially under the New Covenant, is bad. And from what I can see, those passages in Deuteronomy are about avoiding idolatry and incorporating pagan practices into worship, along with some instructions on how worship was to be conducted at that time (under the old covenant)

I do agree that we don’t have license to incorporate whatever we want into our worship of God. I guess the difference between our perspectives is where that line is drawn, I believe anything God has called sinful or specifically commanded against is over the line. But other than that, as long as you are praising and glorifying God, then it is legitimate worship.

(Again sorry if this discussion is out of line here, I enjoy debating theology and it did come up in relation to the topic)

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

seth wrote:You are right, God does not change, but our status in regards to Him has changed with the coming of Christ. Before, we were separated from him by sin and could only approach Him like a peasant approaching a king, with great formalism. Now that is no longer the case, since that separation has been broken. God has given certain commands regarding worship, like you mentioned with the Lord’s Supper, but I don’t think there’s reason to add to His commands things that aren’t there (like the idea that anything He didn’t specifically command is prohibited). I agree the second commandment certainly does still apply though, and churches that use images in worship are in violation of it.

It is true that there was a great formalism under the Old Covenant, and that we can now boldly approach the throne of grace and even refer to God as our Father, which is an amazing and incredible privilege. The veil of the temple was rent in twain at the death of Christ and we can now draw near. It is for this reason that worship under the New Covenant involves fewer outward  ceremonies and is rather simplistic, but greater in glory. But I don't believe that any of this gives us creative license to import into the worship of God whatsoever we desire. I am not adding to God's commands by asserting this, as we find this principle in Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 12 in particular. This is really the underlying meaning of the second commandment. Much like how the sixth commandment is not just about not murdering, but ultimately about seeking the good of others and protecting life, and not hating one's brother.

100% agreed regarding images of God, which are not to be permitted. I would stretch it farther though and say that any attempt to depict Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, whether or not for the express purpose of worship, is a breach of that commandment.

Pethead wrote:On your last paragraph, how do you define specifically “worship” lyrics? The Psalms themselves don’t always fit a narrow “vertical” definition of worship lyrics. (E.g. Psalm 133).

All the Psalms (in addition to being the inspired word of God) are worship songs regardless of their lyrical content. When I mention "worship" lyrics in metal, I guess I mean that primarily based upon the intent of the artist, which can't necessarily be determined all that easily, so it is kind of a blurry line. What might sound like worship could actually be prayer. In general I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and the line there is definitely blurry. But whenever I worship God, in public or in private, on the Lord's Day or any other day, I only sing the Psalms.

What about the songs in the NT, such as those in the first part of Luke or Revelation or the possible hymn of Philippians 2:6–11? If you only use the Psalms, do you never sing the name of Jesus in worship? Or mention the cross beyond the reference in Ps 22?

I love them with caution.  Some of these are incredible worship songs.  I lean toward Pethead's statement that it should come directly from Scripture.  

Theocracy's I Am is this done right.  The only line I scratch my head over is "I Am the trusting child..." since I don't recall God ever describing Himself as a child in the Bible (I could be wrong on that).  One question mark line isn't enough to turn me off to it.  It's a powerful song that I worship to regularly.  It's possibly my favorite song of all time.

I definitely see how someone could write something heretical into a song sung from God's perspective or put some social justice perspective or other words in God's mouth that are really man's opinion, which is borderline blasphemy.

(Not ignoring this thread - I plan to give a more thought-out response later today when I have more time. But I might be posting in other places before then.)

No worries, CW!

eatbugs wrote:I love them with caution.  Some of these are incredible worship songs.  I lean toward Pethead's statement that it should come directly from Scripture.  

Theocracy's I Am is this done right.  The only line I scratch my head over is "I Am the trusting child..." since I don't recall God ever describing Himself as a child in the Bible (I could be wrong on that).  One question mark line isn't enough to turn me off to it.  It's a powerful song that I worship to regularly.  It's possibly my favorite song of all time.

I definitely see how someone could write something heretical into a song sung from God's perspective or put some social justice perspective or other words in God's mouth that are really man's opinion, which is borderline blasphemy.

I’ve heard people balk at that line, but Luke 2 literally describes Jesus as a trusting child who obeyed Mary and Joseph and His real Father by going to the Temple to teach. In my experience people are seriously uncomfortable thinking of Jesus as a boy who, as Scripture says, “grew in wisdom and grace with God and men.”

CrimsonWarrior wrote:Same as Pethead. If they're quoting Scripture, great. If it's pretty close, that is fine. But Theocracy's I Am is a great example of speaking from God's perspective done poorly. Imo it actually sounds rather pantheistic, as though everything is God, be it rain, bread, melodies, or a child. I understand what they were trying to do, but they did it very poorly.

I'd take things a step farther as well and say that I am not a fan of "worship" lyrics in metal or any other style of music. I would much rather the lyrics be more along the lines of preaching, exhortation, storytelling, etc. God gave us the Psalms for his worship, and we should not sing anything else to him in the context of worship. It is for this reason that I rarely listen to Grave Declaration these days, even though I really appreciate their musical style.

What’s “worship” according to the New Testament? Singing Psalms, or offering your life as a living sacrifice? 

“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.”
- Romans 12:1 (NASB)

If the regulative principle of worship were true, then we would not be permitted to do anything in our day to day lives without it being expressly permitted in Scripture, because our lives lived for the Father is worship. Handing out gospel tracks? Strange fire. Reading Scripture on your phone? Strange fire. Congregating in a church building with pews? Strange fire. The whole thing falls apart if one actually defines worship properly.

OK I have already stated Im not super deep in my Theology but I feel like we as Christians just always need to find a division or something to nit pick. 

My stance is if it isnt heretical than whats wrong with it. I know there are some here that have been through seminary etc, but "MAN" is the one that has come up with alot of this as ideas of "how". Maybe Ill get roasted for this post I dont know.

Sorry I dont have any issues with i Am or other songs with lyrics from Gods point of view as long as they are not in direct conflict with the teaches of Jesus and scripture.

Sorry once again just my 2 cents.

I wrote this way on at least one song and I believe it was a huge mistake.

Pethead wrote:Not big on it unless it’s pretty directly lifted from Scripture. I don’t necessarily have a real consistent standard on this, but in general, I’d advise against it.

That's basically where I'm at.  I haven't purged any songs/CDs because of it, but most of the time they do make me a bit uneasy unless they're directly quoting Scripture.  I'll give leeway if they maintain an accurate/biblical perspective, but suggesting God would or did say something He didn't or wouldn't is an error of high severity IMO.  Not to derail... but I think that was the biggest critique of The Shack when it came out - not only that they visually depicted God the Father as a person, but that "she" spoke as God in ways inconsistent with or beyond Scripture.