The phrase Heaven meets Earth like a sloppy, wet kiss is found in a song titled "How He Loves" (see full set of lyrics here) which is currently used as a worship song in corporate worship settings. The particular line in question has, understandably, caused quite the controversy in Christian circles with advocates for both its inclusion and exclusion. An alternate version is sometimes used with the offensive portion of the lyric replaced by the words unforeseen kiss. For the purposes of this analysis, HME will refer to Heaven meets Earth, and SWK to sloppy, wet kiss.
As I see it, there are at least three issues with, or related to, this specific lyric:
I - Whether by design or by accident, the intended meaning of the lyric is vague and internally inconsistent. This, despite attempts by John Mark McMillan, the author, to define and explain the meaning of the words he used.
II - Much of the current corporate worship singing methodology, found in the contemporary evangelical church in America, is inconsistent with foundational corporate worship practice. The modern practice, in the West, of interjecting the personal into the corporate, reflects secular influences.
III - Those who hear, read, or sing the song, whom I will refer to as recipients of the song, readily misinterpret the author's intended meaning in both the HME and SWK lyrics.
Poorly Structured Metaphors
I - Whether by design or by accident, the intended meaning of the lyric is vague and internally inconsistent. This, despite attempts by John Mark McMillan, the author, to define and explain the meaning of the words he used.
Note that one of the premises of this blog post is that an Author's Intended Meaning, especially in the context of a corporately sung worship song, must be readily and publicly identifiable, understandable, and explainable. Also for the purposes of this blog post, it is assumed that the meaning of the author's intent is static across recipients, regardless of time or culture. Thus, for example, the original authors of the Bill of RIghts had specific meaning they intended to communicate that remain to this day, regardless of how we may now wish to interpret or apply it.
The author of How He Loves has written a blog post (see his full post here), regarding this particular lyric, and I assume it is his attempt to explain his intended meaning of the phrase. Following are several excerpts (emphasis added):
I have realized that the song “How He Loves” has become very personal to many people, and it honestly doesn’t really belong to me, or Kim Walker, or David Crowder. It belongs to them...
I think the fact that a line like “Sloppy wet kiss” could be controversial is ridiculous. Are we in kindergarten? Has any one out there not had or at least expected to some day, engage in a sloppy wet kiss? Have Christians decided to stop procreating and let Islamic extremists populate the whole earth?
Some folks are genuinely sad because a song so personal to them seems to have been messed with... Still many of the people, on both ends, who seem to be making a big deal out of it, have both seemed to misunderstand the lyric. It seems that people either hate it or love it because they think I’m some how talking about kissing God. Please folks, I never ever, ever, ever, thought of this line as though it was talking about kissing God...
The idea behind the lyric is that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of earth converge in a way that is both beautiful and awkwardly messy. Think about the birth of a child, or even the death of Jesus himself. These miracles are both incredibly beautiful and incredibly sloppy ("gory" may be more realistic, but “Heaven meets earth like a gory mess” didn’t seem to have the same ring). Why does the church have such a problem with things being sloppy? Do we really think we’re fooling anyone on Sunday morning, especially God? Are we going to offend him? I mean, he’s seen us naked in the shower all week and knows our worst thoughts, and still thinks we’re awesome. What if we took all the energy we spent faking and used that energy to enjoy the Lord instead?
Sidenote: One very troubling fact that emerges from the author's blog post is an apparent lack of charity towards fellow believers. There are many instances of his denigrating other believers as well as making broad (and incorrect) assumptions about other believer's intentions, including presenting false dichotomies. Phrases such as "Are we in kindergarten?", the referencing of Islamic extremists, and accusing fellow believers of being afraid of sloppiness and that they are faking it or trying to fool God are all indicators that should cause fellow Christians concern.
I think there are several problems with the author's explanations of his intended meaning.
1) Poorly structured metaphors = misunderstandings in meaning.
As noted by the author himself, and as evidenced by the multiple interpretations recipients have made of the lyric, many people seem to misunderstand the lyric. Why? The plain answer is - it's a poorly structured metaphor (especially when used in the context of a corporately sung worship song). Not helping the matter is the author's rationalization which verges on being self-centered artistic mumbo-jumbo what with talk about the song being so personal to some people that it now belongs to them. Nonsense! Unless you, as a writer, claim to have been guided and controlled by some supernatural spirit force (whether Divine or not), you are the one who penned your words. Deconstructed to its simplest form, the act of writing is that of thought in conjunction with decision making and then transfer to media format. As such, you the writer are responsible for the impact of your words regardless of whether or not you think that those who "misunderstand" it are erring. As it is, what we have here is a confusing lyric laced with confusing metaphors.
2) The phrase sloppy, wet kiss is commonly understood to have multiple meanings, one of which has sexual connotations. The author of this song seems to admit as much in his blog post.
When I criticized SWK for having sexual connotations, other Christians cried foul, claiming that the phrase means nothing of the sort to them (and implying that I must be having dirty thoughts). From his post, however, it appears that the author considers the metaphor / act of SWK to have sexual connotations. After first ridiculing anyone who may take offense with its use in the song he then assumes, in the form of a question, that essentially every Christian has had or desires to some day engage in the act of a sloppy, wet kiss. Then he clarifies, in a very denigrating manner, that he considers the phrase to have sexual connotations by positing, again through a question, that Christians who have criticized the use of SWK must have also decided to stop procreating! Now, let's be clear, the issue here isn't whether or not sexuality is referenced in scripture or if it is a topic worthy of discussion in church. The issue is what was the author's intended meaning of the SWK phrase in this particular song. And he clearly indicates that he understands the phrase SWK to have sexual connotations.
However, if one reads the Biola article and interview, Worship, Creativity and a Sloppy Wet Kiss, one finds a yet another description of the meaning behind SWK. From McMillan (emphasis added),
I think ultimately there are two problems people have with the line. I think the major problem is that the line makes people uncomfortable. I think the whole idea that God would do anything sloppy seems to bother people. But if they read the Bible I don’t see why that would bother them, because I don’t think he does anything that isn’t sloppy to our human mindset. It’s never neat and clean. It’s never easy. It’s always uncomfortable. I think the other issue is the whole idea that that line, out of context, has a sexual connotation. When I wrote it I never thought of it that way. I thought of it more like Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. I thought of it like the waves meeting the shore. They connect. But I guess people can be squeamish, and if you have that line in another context — outside of church — they probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. But I think God exists both inside and outside of church, and if worship only exists in your life within your church activities, then it’s not really worship. If you don’t realize that you’re bringing everything with you into worship, then you’re kidding yourself, because you do: The good, the bad, and the ugly. And that’s OK.
Again, besides contradicting what he wrote in his blog post, he not only attempts to blame those who have criticized the use of the phrase as being the ones at fault, through false assumptions, but he again attempts to drive corporate worship into being some sort of an individual act based on external factors in our lives.
And, needless to say, the Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd reference is just plain weird.
3) Heaven meets Earth. What does that mean? Evidently, pretty much anything you want it to mean.
In discussing this song with other Christians, I received various ideas of what they happened to think the HME phrase meant. Looking to the author's explanation is of virtually no help because he himself is not clear. Rather than provide a concise, direct statement of meaning, we have a vague description that the convergence, whatever is converging (look ahead to point # 4), is both beautiful and awkwardly messy. Cute words, but are there any examples of this? Well, he gives two - the birth of a child and the death of Jesus:
a) He incorrectly classifies these events as miracles (unless he's using the word miracle as a metaphor to describe another metaphor) and then states that they are both beautiful and sloppy. However, this is inconsistent because I find it incredibly ridiculous that the death of Jesus would be termed as both beautiful and sloppy - beautiful and sloppy, that is, in the same sense, context and application as one would describe the birth of a child. Don't agree? Then I suggest you watch the scenes in The Passion of Christ which depict the events in Jesus' last hours, from his flogging on through to his crucifixion, and then honestly try to make a direct link, in terms of descriptors, to the imagery, emotions, etc., with that of the birth of your child. They are two, very different acts. Broad-based terms with vague meanings that can be broadly applied lead to subjective, personal interpretations - and that is dangerous. More on that later.
b) Another inconsistency arises when he states that gory would be a more realistic descriptor than sloppy, but that using gory didn't have the same ring. So, it seems that words do have public meaning, which also bring along with them metaphorical baggage. Yet, if gory is a better descriptor, then it should be used or it should at least be interchangeable. But it isn't. Another indicator of a poorly structured metaphor.
c) He then accuses the church of having a problem with things being sloppy. Maybe the church does, but my criticizing his lyric doesn't necessarily indicate that.
d) Finally, even though the HME phrase itself demands explanation, we never really find out what it describes, much less what it means. Either the author assumes we know what he means by kingdom of heaven converging on the kingdom of earth, or he simply cannot explain it. Or a little of both. Or, he's left it up to the recipients to determine the meaning. Inherent vagueness in a phrase is not fodder for meaningful understanding in worship.
4) And... just what is the kingdom of earth?
I am not aware of any Biblical basis for the Heaven meets Earth analogy to Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of Earth convergence that the author posits.
a) While the Kingdom of Heaven is mentioned in scripture, there is no corresponding specific reference to a Kingdom of Earth. Is this simply a reference to humanity? Humanity = earth?
b) In discussing the lack of scriptural clarity of this reference with other Christians some have posited that the Kingdom of Earth might* reference the domain of Satan (e.g., Prince of the Air) or the kingdom of the world (ref. Revelation 11). However, any such comparisons result in the metaphor then referencing God meeting or converging with Satan. Huh? This surely cannot be the author's intended meaning because God meeting Satan is not awkward, it is not sloppy, it is not sexual, it is not cute - it is pure, Holy wrath (read Rev. 19).
c) Again, the author gives no indication as to what the HME metaphor, as he's used it, truly references. Besides having no scriptural basis for the lyric, the two examples he does provide only reference the beautiful and messy metaphor.
* note: yet another indicator of vagueness
5) The application of the SWK metaphor is confusing.
If, as the author states, the sexually defined SWK metaphor references an awkwardly messy state (which is supposedly more realistically defined as a gory mess), then the author's intended meaning seems to have drifted into yet another state of confusion.
a) Recipients I've talked to, who approve of the SWK metaphor, give interpretations that indicate a warm-fuzzy feeling (e.g., dog licking your face, toddler kissing your cheek, soldier kissing his wife after returning from war), none of which resemble a gory mess, much less the author's stated meaning.
b) While a gory mess analogy might indicate the situation when God consummates his destruction of Satan (the actual Kingdom of Heaven meeting a derived Kingdom of Earth), it is better described as in Rev 19. Simply put, God meeting Satan is not like the SWK warm-fuzzy feeling described by recipients.
Do you see what is happening here? Vague phrases and poorly structured metaphors by the author, when mixed with poor interpretive methodologies by the recipients, leads to inconsistencies, paradoxes, contradictions, etc., in meaning.
On Corporately Sung Worship Songs
II - Much of the current corporate worship singing methodology, found in the contemporary evangelical church in America, is inconsistent with foundational corporate worship practice. The modern practice, in the West, of interjecting the personal into the corporate, reflects secular influences.
From James Smith in Postscript to an "Open Letter to Praise Bands",
...not all Christians share the same theology of worship. Indeed, my concern is that some sectors of North American Christianity don't have much of a theology of worship at all. Many of us--including many congregations--have only an implicit understanding of what worship is, and we have not always made that explicit, nor have we subjected our assumptions to rigorous biblical and theological evaluation.
As I've written about elsewhere, one of the features of 21st century evangelical Christianity in America is that of being overly relationship driven. Emotion and feelings are elevated, in my opinion, to priority levels out of place with a healthy approach towards the Christian faith. One of the areas where this phenomenon is readily seen is in how corporate worship singing has changed, over the recent past (i.e., within the last 50-100 years). The advent of a "worship leader", along with the "worship team" or "praise band", is something that was simply not found previously.
Now, I'm not about to state that having a worship leader and / or a worship team is a bad or wrong thing. However, I think there are certain aspects or ways of thinking, which have hitchhiked along for the ride, that perhaps do not necessarily engender themselves to proper Christian worship in the corporate sense. Consider the fact that many worship leaders feel that it is incumbent upon them to provide the emotional means for the congregation to enter into worship of Almighty God. In essence, they feel that they have to provide the passion necessary for emotionally expressive worship, and that if they don't provide the passion, then they aren't fulfilling their calling. Yet what many times transpires is that music is used as a catalyst for driving the emotional direction of the service. As James Smith notes in An Open Letter to Praise Bands, this is nominally a secular phenomenon - something he classifies as a "secular liturgy".
...my concern is that we, the church, have unwittingly encouraged... musical practices into Christian worship that--while they might be appropriate elsewhere--are detrimental to congregational worship. More pointedly, ...I sometimes worry that we've unwittingly encouraged... certain forms of performance that are, in effect, "secular liturgies" and not just neutral "methods." Without us realizing it, the dominant practices of performance train us to relate to music (and musicians) in a certain way: as something for our pleasure, as entertainment, as a largely passive experience. The function and goal of music in these "secular liturgies" is quite different from the function and goal of music in Christian worship.
Another relatively new feature of modern worship singing is that of personal feeling being interjected into the process. The next time you're in the worship song portion of a worship service, take note of the number of personal pronouns you encounter in the songs. Then take note of the context of the use of personal pronouns; note the difference between "I once was lost, but now am found" to "I am so in love with you", or "You, alone, are my strength, my shield" to "You make me come alive, You make me come alive". It seems that we've tended to focus our worship songs on the particular feelings we are having, albeit for God, yet emphasizing how the feelings are affecting us. Again, there's nothing necessarily wrong with acknowledging that God's love impacts us emotionally, but it is categorically different from what we find in most classical hymns and definitely from what we find in the Pslams, where God is the subject of our praise, worship, and adoration. Again, from James Smith,
Worship is not only expressive, it is also formative. It is not only how we express our devotion to God, it is also how the Spirit shapes and forms us to bear God's image to the world. This is why the form of worship needs to be intentional: worship isn't just something that we do; it does something to us. And this is why worship in a congregational setting is a communal practice of a congregation by which the Spirit grabs hold of us. How we worship shapes us, and how we worship collectively is an important way of learning to be the body of Christ.
A frightening turn in the singing of worship songs has been the introduction of self-expressive personal diaries - a sort of musically sung out version of one's personal relationship issues. It is not surprising to hear these types of songs described as being honest or genuine or authentic, which are the corporate buzz-words for many of the social-justice-artist types. I consider these types of songs to be dangerous to corporate worship singing primarily because they seem to be derived from the personal experience of the songwriter so much so that the songs themselves become reflections of what the authors happened to be feeling, at the time they were written, and usually are contextualized along those lines. This should not be when a song is sung to worship God within the setting of a corporate expression. Despite arguments that the Pslams are full of personal expressions of worship we do not find the same kinds of expressions as typically found in many songs sung today. Take, for example, Psalm 13, an individual lament,
How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
How long must I take counsel in my soul
and have sorrow in my heart all the day?
How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?
Consider and answer me, O LORD my God;
light up my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,
lest my enemy say, “I have prevailed over him,”
lest my foes rejoice because I am shaken.
But I have trusted in your steadfast love;
my heart shall rejoice in your salvation.
I will sing to the LORD,
because he has dealt bountifully with me.
(Psalm 13 ESV)
Personal? Very much so. Honest? Certainly. Authentic? Well, it is scripture. Hmmm, maybe what we need to do, rather than derive our own "honest and authentic" songs is look to the ones already given to us?
And, another thing to note from the Psalm 13 example is that, despite David's feelings, they weren't the subject of the Psalm - it was, and remains about, God.
From James Smith, on how praise bands and worship songs are being influenced by secular culture, instead of, as I would argue, the other way around.
Because worship is formative, and not merely expressive, that means other cultural practices actually function as "competing" liturgies, rivals to Christian worship. In Desiring the Kingdom, I analyze examples of such "secular liturgies," including the mall, the stadium, and the university. The point is that such loaded cultural practices are actually shaping our loves and desires by the very form of the practice, not merely by the "content" they offer. If we aren't aware of this, we can unwittingly adopt what seem to be "neutral" or benign practices without recognizing that they are liturgies that come loaded with a rival vision of "the good life." If we adopt such practices uncritically, it won't matter what "content" we convey by them, the practices themselves are ordered to another kingdom. And insofar as we are immersed in them, we are unwittingly mis-shaped by the practices.
This is important not because we wish to prevent open, honest, and authentic dialogue between Christians and in the church. It is important because we need to understand the role of worship, how it is not limited to singing, but that when it does include singing it has a specific purpose and application.
When the author of "How He Loves" describes his approach to songwriting as well as corporate worship singing, he essentially describes a process which takes the impact of subjective personal songs as a force to make desired changes in our behavior (see the Relevant magazine article linked below). Not to put too fine a point on it, but the worship singing portion of a worship service is not the time or place to effect social change. In the Biola article and interview, Worship, Creativity and a Sloppy Wet Kiss, McMillan states,
The way I write is almost always from a personal perspective. I’m not a very analytical writer, at least at the birth of a song. I’m more just trying to communicate an emotion or a feeling. I’m not trying to ask myself at that point if this is a song people might sing as worship. For me, I would write songs even if it wasn’t something I did for a living, because it’s just something I love to do.
Despite the artistic desires to break new ground, or the recent pseudo-artistic notion that if one is an artist then one must be provocative, we're still left with the deeply grounded idea that God is God and owed worship for who he is. That notion is the foundation of worship to God.
Perhaps this is why Psalm 23, an individual lament as well as song of trust, can be littered with personal pronouns and yet not be about how David happens to feel but declarative statements of God's attributes. And perhaps that is why another individual lament, Psalm 51, after it is clarified in the text that it is a Psalm of David after Nathan had confronted him about Bathsheba, is one of the most honest and authentic laments and praise offerings to God found in scripture.
Below are excerpts from the Relevant magazine article The Heart of John Mark McMillan. As you read the excerpts, contrast them to the argument James Smith makes regarding worship songs and the influence secular liturgies may have on how we both write and sing them. Think about author's intentions, public meaning, private meaning, genre and application; think about whether or not words have meaning, how objective and subjective interpretation interplays with that, and whether or not words truly lose their impact or if listeners merely stop paying attention; think about the purpose of worship and what the true purpose of anyone leading worship is; lastly, think about doctrinal issues and whether or not there is a need for theological grounding in corporate expressions of worship.
During the last several years, John Mark McMillan has learned to stop worrying about whether or not his lyrics are perfect, or if what he sings about is what people want to hear. After all, a lack of approval is a common side effect of honesty.
“I want to inspire people to say what they feel and not what they feel like they’re supposed to say,” he says of his songs. “Because if they feel like they’re supposed to do something, they don’t give themselves the opportunity to be genuine. They’ll just say the same words, which are great words, but after a while they stop meaning anything. We need new words to say the same thing because after a while the words lose their potency.”
...
“I’m super happy for a whole new generation to take the song as their own and use it for their personal conversation with God,” McMillan says.
...
McMillan adds that the Church should incorporate more songs dealing with tragedy, loss and despair into its worship. He points to one of his favorites—Bruce Springsteen—as an example of someone who sings about hope to those who don’t have it.
“That’s what I love about Springsteen—he’s telling the average person’s story,” he says. “That’s what a worship leader should do.
“On this side of eternity, we’re going to have tragedy,” McMillan continues. “A lot of times in church we don’t want to talk about those kinds of things because it’s uncomfortable, but there are so many people in church who need to have that dialogue with God that I had. I think that’s why that song has become so powerful.”
...
“I think people get so concerned with being correct that they end up editing themselves down, but that’s not the way King David did it,” he says. “That’s not the way they do it in the Bible. You bring God what you have and let Him deal with you. I really feel like God is not interested with how correct our words are. He doesn’t want us to get into weird situations, but I think He’d really prefer something that’s incorrect and genuine instead of something that’s correct but comes from a robot.”
...
When it comes to leading worship, McMillan says the goal must be to help people communicate on a personal level.
“The purpose of a worship leader or a songwriter is to give people language,” he says. “If you give people language, you give them permission. If you’re Bob Dylan in the ‘60s, you give people permission to think differently than their parents did. ... If you’re a worship leader, you give people permission to talk to the Lord, have a dialogue and express their heart.”
One thing you should take away from the article from which these excerpts were quoted is that there is a mindset in evangelical Christendom which tends to prioritize what has been deemed as genuine, honest, and authentic as somehow superior to rote doctrinal integrity, regardless of whether or not that which is deemed genuine is also correct! Yes, there was the qualifier to avoid weirdness, but do you see how the dichotomy is placed between the subjective and the objective? Simply put, worship leaders do not give us permission to talk to the Lord - worship is not about our expressing our hearts to God in dialogue. Springsteen and Dylan, while iconic secular music artists, are not theologians. God is owed our worship and we are owed nothing. This is so because of who God is and who we are. Until Christians understand this first step, they will most likely err as they enter into worship song in America.
For those, like McMillan, who seem to think that words lose their potency (and meaning?) over time, rather than attempt to write new words which I would assume would also lose their potency over time, perhaps they should take the time to understand the meaning and impact of the words we already have. In The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything, Fred Sanders writes about traditional aspects within evangelical circles, and the tendency for conservatives to latch onto them too tightly, and liberals to discard them too easily; a result of a condition he describes as decadence. From the book,
Under conditions of decadence, two types of reaction typically occur. Conservative temperaments tend to grab up all the fragments and insist on keeping them as they were found. They may be totally inert lumps that nobody knows how to make use of, but the conservative will faithfully preserve them as museum pieces. Liberal temperaments, on the other hand, tend to toss the fragments aside as rapidly as they stop proving useful.
For those who advocate a new, and supposedly more genuine, form of worship, perhaps they should take the time to delve into the mysteries of the deep things of God, vs. the deep things of self? We, in the church, would do well to take the following saying to heart,
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's the best way;
And just because you've got a new way to do it doesn't mean that it's a better way.
It is incumbent on Christ followers to understand the aspects of corporate worship, aspects that include the fact that the worship experience is intended to bring glory to God within a corporate setting. As such, we need to understand what comprises and what does not comprise a corporately sung worship song. We would also do well to understand that the words we say (and sing) about God, including how we give him tribute - what he is owed - are serious things. There are multiple ways to utter God's name in vain, and I believe it is our responsibility to understand the importance of the text-to-meaning issue.
Subjective and Personal Interpretations lead to Relativism
III - Recipients of the song (those who hear, read, or sing it) readily misinterpret the author's intended meaning in both the HME and SWK lyrics. The root cause for this appears to be a combination of being ill-informed as well as by approaching the text of the song in a relativistic and subjective manner.
Recipients of this song - unaware of author's intended meaning - upon hearing the HME / SWK phrase, regardless of whether or not they like it, generally understand the meaning as something other than the author's intended meaning. As a result, recipients of the song have varying, personally derived understandings of the meaning.
Instead of a complete understanding of the intended meaning, they hear:
HME = a natural phenomenon (e.g., a sunset), God fighting Satan, God meeting humans, God loving humans, Jesus' death, etc.
SWK = feeling / emotion like when a dog licks your face or a toddler gives you a sloppy kiss on your cheek (slobbering saliva all over your face) or a soldier kissing his wife after returning home from war or a "French" or sexually passionate kiss, etc.
These multiple interpretations about the meaning of the phrase come about because of:
1) Recipients simply not being aware of the author's intended meaning of the phrase.
It is generally incumbent upon recipients to educate themselves on the meaning of the words they sing in corporate worship.
2) The author's intended meaning being obscure.
As explained earlier, it is incumbent upon authors to take care with the words they write, properly framing them so they are understood, taking into consideration aspects such as genre, intended audience, and application.
If the author is obscure by design, then I would caution anyone who engages said author's work to be on guard. In their book Why We're Not Emergent, authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck take on the various aspects of the emergent church that wrongfully delve into postmodern - relativistic - thought. A couple of paragraphs that DeYoung writes, regarding an emergent church take on the idea of the Kingdom of God, are striking in how they resonate with the topic of this post. From DeYoung (emphasis added),
For those in the emerging church, Jesus' message of the kingdom is a manifesto about God's plan for humanity here and now. It is the secret and subversive announcement that God is working out His plan for peace, justice, and compassion on earth. The kingdom message is a summons to participate with God in His dream for humanity, His revolution of love and reconciliation. It is an invitation to join the party of God and be a part of His worldwide mission to heal and be healed. It is a call to join the network of God that breaks down the walls of racism, nationalism, and ecological harm. The kingdom of God is like a dance of love, vitality, harmony, and celebration.
Joining the kingdom is not a move in status (i.e., from unsaved to saved), but a move in practice. Jesus' message was not about affirming the right doctrines, but about following His teachings and treating others rightly. Christianity is essentially a messianic way of living. It's about hoping for what God hopes for, about not turning God's dream for the world into a nightmare. "The kingdom of God, then, is a revolutionary, counter-cultural movement - proclaiming a ceaseless rebellion against the tyrannical trinity of money, sex, and power." In short, as members of the kingdom we follow Jesus as "the best possible way for a person to live."
Per DeYoung's footnotes,
These metaphors and descriptions are taken from Brian D. McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus. McLaren makes these suggestions because kingdom language "is outdated and distant"...
Yet, do we have the authority to change definitions simply because we may happen to think existing or traditional descriptors are outdated and distant? Do we have the authority to take solid, Biblical theology (e.g., Kingdom of God as it relates to King and dom as they relate to covenants, blessing, etc.) and re-express it with fluid terms such as dance of love, vitality, ceaseless rebellion, etc.?
No. We don't.
To reiterate, vagueness in description, especially for something as concrete and important as the kingdom of heaven, can only lead to confusing interpretations.
3) Recipients using a subjective interpretation of the metaphors in the song, sometimes as related to their own personal experience and / or personal desires.
This is the most dangerous aspect, because:
a) The practice reflects a subjective and personal approach towards understanding meaning within a corporately sung worship song. Subjectivity in how we sing and understand a corporately sung worship song personalizes something that is meant to be public. For example, subjectivity in textual interpretation, specifically Biblical interpretation, shows up in how Christians commonly personalize scripture which, in fact, changes the meaning of the text to something not intended by the author. This practice must stop.
In Spirit-intended Applications, Walt Russell, from Biola, explains how this subjective process can incorrectly relate to the interpretation of Biblical text (emphasis in original),
...We overly-privilege readers in the interpretive process when we leave applications up to their free choice, essentially inviting a disconnect from the biblical text.
Overly-privileging readers to generate the applications tacitly sets us up to assume that our life-setting is the primary context for the application process. In many ways this annuls authorial intention and fills the interpretive gap between the author and the interpreter with the reader’s cultural perspective, worldview, and theological system. Instead, this gap or space should be filled with appropriate author-generated inferences.
b) Subjectivity breeds relativism, which essentially turns the meaning of a text (in this case, a worship song) into whatever the hearer / singer wants it to be. The text doesn't mean what you or I want it to mean.
c) Such an individualistic approach, while potentially fine in a personal setting, does not promote the unifying aspect of corporate worship and, in fact, promotes confusion. When the corporate body of believers is offering worship to God, we rely on ideas and concepts that have public meaning - that is - the ideas are readily available and commonly understood by those offering them up to God. If we, instead, rely on singing songs with privatized meaning, then we effectively turn a corporate expression of worship into a setting in which many individuals are offering individual expressions of worship - expressions that may not be the meaning of the lyrics being sung.
d) Also notice how, after the SWK lyric was changed to unforeseen kiss, some people were upset with the change primarily because the song is so personal to them. This is categorically different from being upset with a lyrical change based on theological grounds or because of the public meaning it contained. The issue is not, and should not be, whether or not a worship song is personal to someone, but whether or not the public meaning of the lyrics are readily accessible.
e) Many recipients seem to find no problem at all with providing subjective interpretation of the lyrics based solely on how the lyrics happen to make them feel. This is also a dangerous practice because what tends to occur is that the individual's feelings, and not consistency with scripture, become the arbiter in determining the validity of a worship song.
Conclusion
In conclusion, perhaps the most frightening aspect of this entire debate is that, upon hearing the concerns raised, as well descriptions of the structural flaws and inconsistencies of the metaphors used, some recipients choose to continue to ignore or downplay the warnings solely because they claim that the song is very personal or meaningful "to me", and that when they sing it their experience is euphoric. I recall seeing one Christian refer to Jesus' love, via the metaphors in this song, as "ooey-gooey". The love of God is not a trivial thing, and it should not be degraded to mere emotionalism.
Poor writing, which results in contradictory or confusing metaphors, is not excused by the generation of ecstatic, yet varied, feelings. Note that corporate worship songs can certainly have metaphors, but metaphors used in this sense should be scripturally justified and publicly identifiable. E.g., "As the deer panteth for the water", while being a metaphor, is also directly linked to a Psalm, and has a readily identifiable and explainable meaning for anyone who may not happen to understand it.
It seems to me that any worship song which contains lyrics that are vague and / or open to multiple, subjective interpretations is not a song worthy of being sung in a corporate worship service. Additionally, any words or phrases which have multiple public meanings, depending on the context used, and which may engender potentially vulgar or, at the very least, inappropriate meanings should be avoided.
In the end, what we're left with is a jumbled, mixed-up explanation of what "Heaven meets earth like a sloppy, wet kiss" is supposed to mean or reference (within the context of a public worship song). Asking people who like or dislike the song for their interpretation of the meaning only opens a Pandora's Box of discordant imagery. Yet, the best I can picture from what McMillan himself has said, is some image of Bugs Bunny planting a wet one on Elmer Fudd as they both stand on the seashore, waves lapping up against their feet, while further up the beach some lady is giving birth, along with its requisite gory sloppiness, recalling the fact that we all have had or wish to have a sloppy wet kiss lest we lose the procreation war to Islamic extremists. Is this the data I'm supposed to use as I engage in a corporate worship song? It's no wonder, then, that those who hold this song to be so special and meaningful to their worship experience cannot point to clear meaning from publicly accessible metaphors, but must ground their claims on multiple subjective avenues which, due to the vagueness inherent in the lyrics, dart out in multiple directions of interpretation arriving at correspondingly multiple destinations of relativistic meaning. This is to be preferred, we're told, for the simple reason that it is somehow honest, genuine, and authentic.
In the end, though, we'll end up drowning dead in an ocean filled full of our exalted honesty.
Great post and analysis, Rusty, I appreciate the time you took to do this. Here are my (not very well organized) thoughts in response:
There is nothing wrong with injecting the personal into the corporate in worship as long as the personal is common to the corporate, and serves to truly worship God and not glorify anyone's personal feelings.
I happened to catch a portion of a sermon by Chuck Smith on the radio yesterday. He spoke of a pastors' conference for his denomination, where the bishop encouraged attendees to motivate church growth via competition, a carnal device, because "most church people are carnal, and carnal people need carnal motivation." (Something like that.) Smith demurred, and was not well-received by the bishop. Your discussion of contemporary corporate worship reminds me of Smith's story. It seems that many contemporary worship leaders are leading people to worship God not in Spirit and in truth, but in "authenticity" of personal feeling, which is, frankly, carnal. Not that personal feelings have nothing to do with worship, but they are not the means of worship. Singing, dancing, playing instruments, speaking, and other acts are. (It's possible that those who think they've met the Lord, or been saved, through McMillan's song don't understand what those things really mean.)
I read a defense of the SWK lyrics which used popular disapproval as proof of their rightness, and another which pointed to the numbers of people to whom the song has been so meaningful as proof of its rightness. Yet neither popularity nor unpopularity are true measures of the spiritual value of a worship song (or anything else); they are a carnal measure.
My general understanding of a SWK is: (1) the already-discussed amorous intent, and (2) something an innocent kid, or a dog, would give you. The problem is that none of these are what God, or heaven, would do. Heaven's (God's?) love for us is not of the SWK variety; it just isn't. Though none of us can begin to comprehend how deep and wide is Christ's love (Ephesians 3:18), it is not a human love. It may indeed come to us at times through a SWK, but is not like a SWK, and never will be. The SWK lyric is unbefitting, not to mention infelicitous, and the fact that so many are so moved by it has little to do with God's love.
McMillan's disgust with the criticism to his lyrics shows a lack of appreciation of this. His facetious treatment isn't a comment about Christians' view toward procreation as much as what he thinks their view is toward sloppiness or no-holds-barred passionate expression. It is similar to the response people make to those who believe in chastity, calling them prudes and whatnot, as if believers in chastity don't also believe in enjoying sex to its fullest in the appropriate situation. His asking of the church, "Are we in kindergarten?" seems much less apt than asking the question of himself! Yet he has also said, "As songwriters we need to expand our vocabulary so we can say things carefully," which would seem to contradict his defense of the SWK lyrics.
I can appreciate a wish to get away from a concern with "being correct" where it means "meeting someone else's standard simply for the sake of pleasing that person," but that doesn't mean there are no rules, or that we get to decide them. A self-conscious concern with meeting another person's rule, where what we say comes not from our own thought but from trying to think the way someone else does, is not required of us, and if such concern is what McMillan means, then I am with him. But anything-goes foolishness in place of that, just because it's honest, is not the answer. There is Someone whose standards matter. Our worship must be appropriate and wise; that is genuine worship of a genuine God. We are to bring to God what is worthy--as in the story of Cain and Abel, of Matthew 5:23-24, and the instruction of Romans 12:1.
Genuine is what God wants, but that's genuine truth, not genuine foolishness. Genuine feelings also, which can reflect truth, but feelings are not, in themselves, truth, nor do all true feelings represent true worship. Worship is adoration, reverence, awe, giving to God His due (Hebrews 12:28). It is possible to worship Him in vain (Matthew 15:9). Not that we must be perfect to come to God; we come as we are, yet, we do so for the purpose of worshipping a perfect God. We do so to be changed, to be made holy, not to stay in our kindergartenish (or any other less-than-mature) state.
God doesn't "know our worst thoughts and still think we're awesome," as McMillan suggests; He created us good and thinks we're corrupt, but loves us enough to redeem us through Jesus Christ. McMillan has said, "What if we took all the energy we spent faking and used that energy to enjoy the Lord instead?" Well, faking it is no good, but neither is expressing honest things in an inappropriate manner. There is no Scriptural reference to enjoying the Lord, but there are many to taking joy in Him, and our joy being made full in Him. I suppose joy can be enjoyed, but the scope of joy and enjoy are different: a person doesn't typically take joy in an ice-cream cone, but may enjoy one..."joy" is of a higher order than "enjoyment," which is a more banal experience of pleasure. There is a happiness and satisfaction in joy that the happiness and satisfaction of enjoyment cannot reach.
As far as worship leading goes, a leader is responsible to lead properly. Ephesians 5:19 tells us to "sing and make music from our hearts to the Lord." McMillan's comments have focused on the "from our hearts" part, but what of the "making music" part? Music is musical, meaning it has certain characteristics which make it melodious and beautiful, and harmonious with the good of God's creation, not with the way that mankind has corrupted it. Good music is not "weird" (and if God doesn't want us to get into weird situations, then He probably doesn't want us singing the SWK line!) If McMillan wants to bring his lyric to God for himself, no problem; he and God can deal, one-on-one. But that line is not what I would bring to God, so there is no reason that I should, even in corporate worship. It is not genuine for me to sing something that a worship leader is feeding me if it's not coming from my heart as well. Besides, no one needs a worship leader to "give them language"; there is nothing genuine in that. No worship leader has the authority to give congregants permission to talk to the Lord, either...God already did that.
Posted by: Bonnie | March 28, 2012 at 08:55 PM
Thanks for your comments, Bonnie. I really appreciate your take on the issues at hand here, especially the musical aspects. I like your thoughts about carnality and how it is applied in various avenues. And you touched on some points I had wanted to write about, but felt that I had already written too much.
Posted by: Rusty | March 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Get over it!
it is a beautiful worship song that has touched hundreds of people in indescribable ways! And has even brought unbelievers to their knees in tears and brought them to Christ! SO GET OVER IT!
Posted by: Carmen | August 27, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Thanks for your comment, Carmen, especially for taking the time to understand the various facets of my argument.
Posted by: Rusty | August 29, 2012 at 06:00 PM
I read your argument. I immediatly came up with 3 thoughts: 1) Unless you can become as a child.....I think of the sloppy, wet (joyous, abandon-free, unconditional love kiss of a child--have you ever been a parent?) 2) I think of creation, where the Spirit moved upon the waters..... 3) I think of the uncoventionalism of Christ spitting in the dirt, mixing it with his fingers, then applying that mixture to a blind man's eyes.....
I can envision all these things. And, I've heard the same criticism of "loves like a hurricane" (destructive) And, I see the movement of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. Violent, mighty wind--some translations speak of a gale force. Wow, that's power! (But then, you may only accept the KJV--which still has a mighty, rushing wind)
I love the song. I don't care if we sing sloppy wet kiss or unforeseen kiss. I love how He loves me, and how everything pales in comparison to His love for me. Suddenly I'm aware of all of these afflictions......eclipsed by His Glory. (Even your analysis of the song)
Posted by: Lahoma Kinsey | October 08, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Lahoma,
My sincere thanks for taking the time to read and understand my argument. Note that the concerns I have with this type of song go beyond a mere offense I may have with certain lyrics. I do not discount the fact that some people have had emotional experiences via the lyrics / music of this song. While we can exegete scripture (and literature, poetry, etc.), we cannot exegete someone else's personal experience.
However, the cautionary note I tried to explain in my post is that we, as a culture, tend to personalize our interpretive process to virtually all literature we read and, by extension, songs we sing. Once we start down the road of relativism it becomes way too easy to internalize how various songs and, unfortunately, Scripture applies to us individually - regardless of whether or not the scripture really says what we claim it to say! Hence my pointing out the multiple interpretations of the song in question (multiple meanings given even by the author himself!). That's fine for someone creating their own work of art, so to speak, such as a musical CD. But within the context of corporate worship we should not have lyrics that, by their very nature, conjure up multiple meanings most of which are based solely on how the recipient of the song happens to feel. It may engender a warm, fuzzy feeling during the worship singing portion of the worship service, but I think it's a dangerous romp into the world of relativism.
And, for the record, yes I've been and still am a parent - and, despite that fact, I've never appreciated slobbery kisses from my toddlers. ;^)
Posted by: Rusty Lopez | October 09, 2012 at 06:13 AM
God does not have arms, either... but we talk about them all of the time. Some of you people need to relax and get over the idea that "worship" (corporate or personal) can be defined and follows a set of rules.
Posted by: John Bodo | November 08, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Uh... is that a rule?
Posted by: Rusty Lopez | November 08, 2012 at 08:23 PM
One of my friend just put up this lyric on Facebook. I had no clue it was from a song. I replied "gross!" She ended up deleting my comment. So I googled the phrase and ended up here. Seriously, talk about a bad metaphor. I hate songs that make it sound like Jesus is my girlfriend.
Posted by: Coryjk | December 16, 2012 at 08:29 AM
My daughter sent me this article because she knew my concern over the "sloppy wet kiss song" as I called it. I couldn't believe that there were others who expressed similar concerns. We left a church over this song. Please let me explain. I am 70 years old - definitely of the older generation. We attended a "come as you are, you'll be loved" Vineyard church. Supposedly, it was an inter-generational church. But the music was definitely a reflection of the youth culture of today. We tolerated the music until the sloppy wet kiss song came along. I felt like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, when he bent so much to accommodate changes in his tradition that he was afraid he would break! I told my husband, that the SWK song pushed me over the brink.
Not to be totally intolerant, I went on-line to find out the background of this song. You didn't mention it in your article but the composer had just lost a very close friend and was mourning his death when he wrote this song. I was touched by his story. Then I spoke with a young man who plays in a Christian band and he shared how prostitutes in Las Vegas poured to the front of the auditorium to accept Jesus after hearing this song. Again, I was touched. But I still felt as if I was being pushed out of Christendom because of my age and my personal experiences. Isn't the church supposed to be inter-generational? For us, we felt like we were discarded players because we couldn't get on board with the contemporary music scene.
Our generation was raised to respect our elders and to really respect God. My husband always says if we were invited to visit the President of the United States (no matter who it was), we would wear our best clothes, use our best English (obviously no profanity) and address him as Mr. President and respond with "Sir." It's the way we were raised. How much more should we respect our Creator!! We call our corporate singing "praise and worship" and that implies (to me) that we are to direct our songs to God, to focus on Him and His attributes, and to praise Him for what He does. That's why I like to sing Chris Tomlin's songs ("How Great is Our God," "God of Wonders," etc.); they are directed to God, respectful, and "worshipful." They praise God not mankind. Listening to contemporary Christian music in the car or on the radio is fine for songs like the SWK song. They help you put words to your feelings. But when we come together in worship, I want to worship God not man.
Thanks for letting me vent. We left the Vineyard and went to a Nazarene Church, complete with orchestra, choir, piano and organ. Beautiful music!! We never told anyone because we didn't want to complain. Mostly, I think we just felt disenfranchised from the youth culture of today, as expressed in their lyrics.
I'm really happy that many young people are finding Jesus today, through contemporary Christian music. It seems to me that an "intergenerational" church could include BOTH contemporary Christian music and some of the past praise and worship songs and even hymns!! Our new church does that.
I often wonder if there are going to be different choirs and bands and orchestras in heaven so we can sing with the groups with which we feel most comfortable. I'm glad that God meets us where we are and speaks to us in ways that we can understand! We are so blessed.
Posted by: Shirley | January 05, 2013 at 02:59 PM
Thank you for your comments, Shirley.
To clarify, I was aware of but did not mention, in my post, the reason why McMillan wrote the song. I am in no way against songwriters writing songs based on personal experiences, events, feelings, etc. Most popular music is based on that paradigm. My concern is with personal songs, based on specific context, with vague metaphors, being used as corporate worship songs. In that light I wrote, in my post,
"A frightening turn in the singing of worship songs has been the introduction of self-expressive personal diaries - a sort of musically sung out version of one's personal relationship issues. It is not surprising to hear these types of songs described as being honest or genuine or authentic, which are the corporate buzz-words for many of the social-justice-artist types. I consider these types of songs to be dangerous to corporate worship singing primarily because they seem to be derived from the personal experience of the songwriter so much so that the songs themselves become reflections of what the authors happened to be feeling, at the time they were written, and usually are contextualized along those lines. This should not be when a song is sung to worship God within the setting of a corporate expression."
However, corporate worship songs based on personal experience are not wrong. Consider "It Is Well With My Soul," a song born out of personal tragedy - yet the structure of the lyrics do not lend to vague imagery or questionable meaning. That is the difference.
I'm also reluctant to be convinced by arguments such as that of the Las Vegas prostitutes. If, in fact, they became Christ followers because of this song, then Praise the Lord! However, because of the song's emotionalism, I'd rather hear that they believed after hearing the Word of God preached. But, that's my take.
I can appreciate and respect the choices you've had to make in searching for a *complete* church. I also share the opinion that the Church should be inter-generational, that it should cross the spectrum from developing unborn to those at the end of life's journey here on earth. Regardless of whether we achieve that here, though, perhaps we can at least understand the whys and wherefores of corporate worship.
Posted by: Rusty | January 05, 2013 at 05:43 PM
Dear Rusty, I hope you didn't think I was disagreeing with you. I loved your blog and totally agreed. I was relieved to discover I was not the only one offended by this song. My comments re McMillan described my own attempt at tolerance because I was very upset by the SWK lyrics, and then convicted by my extremely negative reaction to his song. Your blog tackled this subject in an intellectual way which I appreciated greatly. You were able to put into words the issues which I was reacting to at an emotional level. Thanks again for articulating this topic so well; it helped me a lot.
Posted by: Shirley | January 06, 2013 at 12:51 AM
## UPDATED ##
Clarifying that I didn't think you were initially disagreeing with me.
Hi Shirley. No, I didn't think you disagreed with me, I understood where you were coming from. What I meant by addressing McMillan's reason for writing the song, as well as the Las Vegas story, is that I understand some of the arguments given in support of using the song as a "worship" song - and that I don't agree with them, within the context of corporate worship (that was the key).
Thank you again for your kind words re: my post. It's very reassuring to find out that my posts have helped others (whether Christ followers or those the Spirit is drawing). Contrary to what some may think, I don't write these posts simply to complain or criticize, but out of a concern for the body of Christ.
And don't worry if you ever think about disagreeing with me in the future... I've got plenty of people (some of them very close friends) who do that! Besides, many times it's through civil discussions, based on disagreements, that we can all learn new things. ;^)
Posted by: Rusty | January 06, 2013 at 07:15 AM
Personally, I love this verse. It's perfect. It's not hard to understand what "heaven meets earth" means. In theology we talk about the "now and the not yet." Jesus has won the war, but we are still in the world. The Kingdom of Heaven" is here - it is wherever God reigns. It's where there is healing, miracles, gifts of the spirit, prophecy, or Heaven. Since Jesus has come we have "pieces" of the kingdom of God, but we have also all had experiences where our prayers have fallen flat and we are left feeling powerless and alone. But in the midst of worship, when we connect with God, sometimes the kingdom of God is overwhelming - like a sloppy wet kiss!
It is hard, in the "now and the not yet" to understand God's love for us because our job, at this time, is to live by faith - to believe in what is not seen. The whole point of this song is to be overwhelmed by the love that God has for us. To recognize that he has this wild, powerful, amazing love for us. If you need everything to be proper, respectable, and totally in control - then you probably should be singing something else.
Thanks for explaining why this verse has been changed.
Posted by: Ron Jacobus | February 01, 2013 at 03:28 PM
Hate hate hate this song. It always makes me think of a woman being ravaged in a field, even without the sloppy wet kiss line.
Posted by: Qeylar | February 16, 2013 at 06:25 PM
Read Psalm 63 and tell me how in the world there are "misplaced metaphors". David lusted after God. Seems to me you are just a bit jealous that you did not come up with the song yourself.
Posted by: Ken | June 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM
I never claimed there are misplaced metaphors, only confusing and/or contradictory ones.
Psalm 63 indicates David lusted after God? Show me, please.
Yeah, that's right, after my extensive explanation of how confusing metaphors do not help establish a publicly accessible worship song, I'm jealous about not having written said bit of confusion. In fact, I'm so jealous, I'm like a tree...
Posted by: Rusty | June 19, 2014 at 08:58 PM
I am 63, soon to be 64, I like the song and with out going back to obtain the exact wording, Rusty mentioned about knowing the intent of the framers of the Consitution but that does not seem to have stopped the courts from defining themselves what the meaning is. I doubt the framers ever expected corporations to be considered people, we still disagree over the meaning of the second amendment and now we cannot ask them what they meant. But we have the author of the song explaining the meaning, some may not like it, okay don't listen... that works for me I don't like for the most part old gospel, traditional, choir type songs so I usually don't listen to them. What is traditional? I would like to hear some of old "Praise" band songs, my grand kids probably would think of them as traditional. As far as personal, aren't we supposed to have a personal relation with Jesus? Finally it seems that it is wrong for the author to crititze those who dislike, tear down his song, but it is okay to do it to him. Misplaced metaphor...he put where he wanted it, may not be to everyone's liking...okay don't listen...works for me.
Posted by: Bob | July 22, 2014 at 06:35 PM
Thanks for your comments, Bob.
Just to clarify, simply because people attempt to re-interpret the Constitution, or even that there is disagreement on certain points, does not mean there was no original intent.
It's not that I dislike the author's attempts at an explanation, but that I find them to be disjointed, confusing, contradictory, etc.
And I take no offense that he offers arguments in his defense, but that the manner with which he does so is belittling and/or demeaning to other fellow believers.
Yet I do agree with your last point... "don't listen". I try to not listen to that song every chance I get! ;^)
Posted by: Rusty | July 22, 2014 at 08:09 PM
Found this page while searching for that song, because it appeared in news article recently. I recognised the song once I heard it, but not these particular lyrics.
I think that, rather than asking why the author is struggling to defend his art, we should ask whether it follows an acceptable pattern. Is vague, easily reinterpreted poetry (a) acceptable in God's eyes (b) for a corporate setting?
Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”
May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,
and your mouth like the best wine.
As I'm sure you know or can guess, that's from Song of Songs, 7:7-9. Of the many justifications given of why this book appears in the bible at all (God's love song over his people? His bride the church? The bible's equivalent of a theatrical interlude?) none really fills me with any sense of authority. Some bits are certainly beautiful... others wildly crude, yet others just bewildering. Yet it's there. In scripture. Breasts, body shots, brutality and breasts. Did I mention breasts? There are a lot of them. Solomon might have gotten a little fixated.
Is Song of Songs suitable for corporate worship? Certain bits undoubtedly are (He brought me to his banqueting table?) Some bits more uncertainly so - my church used to sing a song "Hold me" by Brian Houston. Very questionable imagery indeed, but not a million miles away from the above book. In fact, the more I think about it, the more that song makes "How he loves" look blander than bread and water.
There is a wider question about the proportion of "ooey-gooey" songs, love songs to Jesus with no real content, vs songs with a message. Christians with our heads firmly in the clouds. But there is no denying that these songs have their place in our corporate worship though I would like to see it diminish in some churches in favour of active expressions of God's love for us.
In case your were wondering, the image of a sloppy wet kiss personally makes me think something akin to one of the Bill and Ted adventures, where they're in hell and meet the archetypal granny puckering up to give her grandkids a massive kiss on the lips. The love and devotion of a God who wants to show his adoration for an undeserving, unwilling world. Heaven meets earth, though earth isn't sure it wants it. In it, we glimpse the desire of God for his church. It's a little comfort, as they'll be cleaning lipstick and saliva off the pulpit for days.
If the song gives you pause, pulls you out of worship and forces you to spend a second examining the remarkable and crazy relationship we have with our amazing creator, I can't see where the problem is.
May the wine go straight to my beloved,
flowing gently over lips and teeth.
I belong to my beloved,
and his desire is for me.
That's Song of Songs 7:9-10. One sloppy wet kiss, God (heaven) and his bride (earth), straight from the bible. If John Mark McMillan had claimed that was his justification, would this blog post have happened?
Posted by: D | January 29, 2015 at 03:01 PM
D,
Thanks for your comments.
My reasons for objecting to the use of How He Loves in corporate worship are pretty well outlined in my post. It's not about avoiding singing about breasts, although I'm not convinced that Song of Solomon was ever used in corporate worship in Israel (much less references to narratives on visiting prostitutes, shoving daggers into obese enemies, driving tent stakes through the heads of same, etc.). As I stated, my concerns are:
I - Whether by design or by accident, the intended meaning of the lyric is vague and internally inconsistent. This, despite attempts by John Mark McMillan, the author, to define and explain the meaning of the words he used.
II - Much of the current corporate worship singing methodology, found in the contemporary evangelical church in America, is inconsistent with foundational corporate worship practice. The modern practice, in the West, of interjecting the personal into the corporate, reflects secular influences.
III - Those who hear, read, or sing the song, whom I will refer to as recipients of the song, readily misinterpret the author's intended meaning in both the HME and SWK lyrics.
That said, I suppose one could add yet another confusion to the metaphor by attempting to connect God as heaven and the bride in Song of Solomon as earth. Sorry - it's a no go for me.
Posted by: Rusty | January 30, 2015 at 07:21 PM