I Love Myself Kendrick Lamar Lyrics

[Jovanna Ponder]

Hopefulyes! That a way forward lies in greater investment in the imagination also resonated. It links to what many have said, and are saying, about the role of artistic creativity in the Christian faith. Thanks again.

Totally!! And he pierces so deeply with that song, it truly feels Psalmic. I do believe there are examples in modern worship that do the hard work of imagery and careful crafting, there are just few and far between.

There is a passage in the essay that was removed for the sake of brevity. But before the end of the essay we return to the scene in Walk the Line, because it is the answer to the problem that the label head posed to Cash.

I have great respect for your artistry and what you do, Joshua. I love that so many Christian artists are wrestling with these things, and firmly believe that we need better modern worship songs. I'm encouraged that you are writing them!

I'd be interested to know what distinctions you might draw between a song written for a body of believers to sing in worship, and a song written for personal imaging and expression. For the latter, I would agree with most of what you say here. For the former, I'm not so sure.

I agree that many modern worship lyrics composed via The Formula are lacking in imagery and specificity, and that we need depth and imagery in our lyrics (which is why the recent resurgence of Psalters is encouraging to me). The loss of hymnals in so many churches -- compendiums of the best of worship music throughout history -- is something of a commentary on the current state of things.

However, there is something intrinsically lowest-common denominator about a biblically-rooted worship service -- it will always cut to the human heart because it is an encounter with the Living God, not because it is artistically compelling. We're bombarded by complexity, imagery, and artists vying for our attention every day of our lives. One of the beauties of gathered worship is that God clears away all of those things so we can come to Him for the grace our cluttered, stubborn hearts need to be softened and made new. As worship leaders, we are responsible (in part) for removing obstacles to that encounter.

I say this as an artist and worship leader myself. I would take "Jesus Loves Me" or "Amazing Grace" over any modern worship song -- whatever the imagery packed into it -- because the whole people of God can sing it with their hearts. I love an imagery-dense song; so do the artists in my congregation. Frankly, it usually won't hit home for the truck drivers, engineers, and health-care professionals in the pews. When I see and hear them sing "I once was lost but now am found / was blind but now I see," or "all I have needed Thy hand has provided / Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord unto me" -- I believe them. They are not on autopilot, and if they are, lack of imagery isn't the cause.

I suspect that the people who are most susceptible to autopilot in worship are artists like you and me, when we build our artistic standards into a wall between ourselves and God's cliches, and between ourselves and God's people who don't uphold the artistic standards we hold to. My own heart has struggled with this on Sunday mornings. The primary threat to worshippers is not cliches; it's their worship leaders (and their own hearts, but that's not really something we have much control over).

I firmly believe that the path forward for worship leaders and songwriters in the church is not more imagery, but coming as broken vessels yearning for more of God and less of ourselves. When it comes to the terrifying task of leading the worship of God, we must use our creative giftings from that posture. Is it any surprise that this was the path at Asbury?

Just as a note on writing music: so many of the hymns of faith that have withstood the winnowing effect of time have done so because they combine excellence with access. The tunes are singable, the lyrics understandable, the imagery is beautiful, the theology sound. They are designed to be sung by the people. To aspire to writing like that of Isaac Watts and King David is a noble aspiration indeed. Praying that God is with you in that process!

I would argue that we've confused accessibility with a lack of poetic imagination, and that in order to reach everyone, we must be as general as possible. What I am arguing is that using piercing imagery is not excluding by nature, but rather inviting people to inhabit what has been written. And while I didn't address it in the essay, I do believe there are in fact modern worship songs that do this (and, inversely, hymns that receive unscrutinized veneration due to nostalgia, that actually fall short). Benjamin William Hastings, Brooke Ligertwood, pre-TIAG Phil Wickham--actually MANY modern worship writers, are capable of writing (and have written) congregational worship songs that triumph in achieving what I long for. Arrival, written by BWH would perhaps be the most triumphant example of what I'm longing for, and it can absolutely be sung congregationally. Countless others from many of the writers working as well.

"Lowest common denominator" doesn't refer so much to being as inclusive as possible, but being as GENERAL as possible, ignoring the fact that specificity is what has often captured the hearts and minds of countless people, whether that be in the house of the Living God or in "secular" art. And part of my fear in the narrow wells in which we draw lyricism from currently, it is unintentionally removing necessary aspects of liturgy--confession (how much imagery is devoted to both our sin and His conquering of it?), lament (how broken do we allow our lyrics themselves to be?), and even communion (this is where I applaud people like Brook and Matt Maher, who seek to weave these sort of notions into their work). Amazing Grace, wholly accessible, does indeed contain imagery and poetry. And the Psalms, of which are part of my argument, have been a part of congregational worship for the whole of the Church's history.

The sheer QUANTITY of music coming out--most major movements/artists releasing an album a year--contributes to the emotional shortcuts of cliche'd, image-barren language. Most contemporary worship albums contain a handful of songs that are deeply moving and crafted (not always the ones that receive the most recognition), and I wish that people would wait until they had an album of only those sort of songs before they went ahead and released things with strong melody but feeble lyricism. I think that people, quick to draw false dichotomies, tend to write off "simple" things as immature, when what they're really referring to is simplistic. Simple can take much time to arrive at--saying things with depth in a short span of time. Simplistic, on the other hand, involves shortcuts. It is resting on "tried and true" rather than mining into more that there is to say, and the best way to say it.

Now, you bring up a different point of much merit--it's not simply about the writing itself. The posture and spirit of the leaders makes all the difference in the world. Deep abiding and intimacy with Jesus can make songs incarnate very, very differently, depending on who is leading them. But one of the points that a dear friend and legendary worship songwriter and leader Brian Doerksen has made, is that "we've often replaced intimacy with intensity, and most modern songs are built around intensity." So, the work is twofold; abiding leading to the wells we draw from in our songwriting, but also in our worship leading.

I believe that there is much precedent for songs sung by the people of God collectively to have artistic merit, alongside those that are not intended for such purposes. Congregational songs at their best, as you've said, are marrying musical accessibility with lyrical poignancy, as has happened with those hymns that have stood the test of time (many did not).

Oh and to your point about believing people when singing those lyrics--I believe them too. Absolutely. In both the writing of a song, and its incarnation countless times over in worshippers in the Church, the sincerity of faith is not in question. But music by nature is IMMENSELY formative on the hearts it lands upon. The question is, as new songs are constantly being written (shared by writing voices that carry much weight), that, by their nature stir people, what is it we're stirring them to? Are our lyrics (and the melodies that carry them) vehicles to point people explicitly to the work and person of Jesus? And how it is that we relate to him in our sinner/saint state this side of eternity? Carefulness in pursuing that end is the call, one that is beautiful beyond measure. We end up, in the argument of Gordon T. Smith, becoming primary disciplers in the church as worship leaders and writers, and I want to steward that to the best end that I can.

Joshua, so so grateful for your willingness to respond at length and with grace, as well as suggestions of those doing it well. There is a groundswell of writers and leaders intent on going deeper in faithful artistry, of going deeper into Christ, and gosh it's been good to hear the work they bring forward. I hope that my musings did not convey any accusation, burden, or ill will; it was certainly not intended. The longer I engage in this work the more I am brought to my knees by the responsibility of it; as you said, the formational power that worship carries for the people of God. We have been in Malachi at my church, and the conviction level is high. :)

I agree - hymns and modern songs alike offer fantastic examples of excellent imagery, just as they both deserve scrutiny. And I very much appreciate your distinction between simple and simplistic. What a world of difference and depth between those ideas!

I too yearn for more imagery, simplicity, and artistic merit in the new songs we are adding to the Church's collection, and I'm coming away from your article and this exchange encouraged again that God is at work even now, beautifying His people. Our work is not in vain.

3a8082e126