Just wondering what people's views are on changing lyrics of popular worship songs such as 'How He Loves' (by John Mark McMillan) and 'Blessed be Your Name' (by Matt Redman).
The original version of How He Loves had the line:
'Heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss'
but some of the covers of the song changed the line to:
'Heaven meets earth like an unforeseen kiss'
Similarly I've heard that some people change the line in Matt Redman's song 'Blessed be Your name' from:
'You give and take away' to 'You give and bless the day'.
Presumably this is legal and the artist's permission was sought before making these changes to the song lyrics - but why do people feel the need to change them? Why not just use a different song?
Actually, since I'm being frank, LOL, -- I LOVE that song. I could listen to it all day long, and it always brings a tear to my eye. But *not* on a Sunday morning as a worship song for the congregation.
I think an example of a great song for a congregation to learn and sing rather quickly would be something like "!0,000 Reasons", "Your Great Name" (Natalie Grant song), or "How Great Is Our God". Those songs have firstly a great messages which help *focus* the congregation on the majesty of God and brings them collectively into an atmosphere of praise; they are easy to sing in meter; the vocal range is pretty consistent (they don't change octaves); they are easy for less-skilled musicians or worship leaders to play.
My favorite worship songs come out of IHOP in Kansas City...but, again, I wouldn't classify a lot of them as being Sunday morning congregational songs. I think Matt Gilman is probably my favorite from IHOP, and just about everything Reuben Morgan writes, I love.
When I lead worship, it's not for my church -- it's for other churches or fellowships that have either women's events, or they are Messianic Jewish events. Messianic Jewish songs have completely different worship songs altogether. I'm not Jewish, but we have been a part of Messianic ministries for many years. A good example of a "cross over" Messianic Worship song that is played in both churches and Messianic Congregations would be "Days of Elijah" or "Let God Arise" by my friend, John Sellers. I currently serve every other weak on another church's worship team as a keyboardist/bgvs. I hate just about every song they sing there, LOL!! They are all non-congregational songs. Which is why I probably have developed such a strong opinion about them lately, cause I find the worship there very lacking.
On "How He Loves", I use "passionate kiss" for sloppy wet kiss. Sometimes.
This may take us down a bit of a different road, but here I go. Worship isn't about the songs or singing. It's about the heart attitude. We are to worship HIM in spirit and in truth. Some folks prefer to express their hearts in one way, and others prefer another. (simple analogy...some like Mexican food, some prefer Chinese, however, BOTH are food and build the body.)
Just because you can't follow the lyrics or words the first time through doesn't mean you can't worship. If you want to talk wordy, look at the hymns. THOSE can be difficult to follow. Does that mean they aren't worshipful? Well, that doesn't depend on the words, song, melody, orchestration, and how simple/complicated it is. It depends on the heart of the worshiper.
There has been a very much needed transition in Christian music. Songs that used to be labeled as "worship" for in the church were not done by Christian artists and played on the radio. Thank God, that has changed. Let it play on the radio, in the stadiums, etc. and if some listen to it as a performance, so be it. Lest we forget, Jesus PERFORMED many miracles. And if others think it's entertainment, remember that the Word teaches to not forsake ENTERTAINING strangers because we may be entertaining angels and not even know it.
Many, many lives have been touched because the songs in the church have been widely spread now in the world, over the radio waves, touching others who may never be exposed to the Spirit of God.
We link to words, the overly religious, dare I say Saducees and Pharisees, get caught up in the works and what it looks like or sounds like. The works that need to happen so it all looks good and is palatable.
It's not about any of that. It's about the heart. Jesus is interested in the heart, the motivation of the heart, the expression of the heart, and a heart that is after HIM and glorifying Him.
"It's about the heart attitude. We are to worship HIM in spirit and in truth."
Correct on both accounts. We are to worship with our heart...and mind, and strength. Thus, the reason for this discussion.
BTW, I also avoid some hymns because of the disconnect between them and the modern English of our congregations.
I find that to be true of hymns as well. There is a richness, honor, and reverence expressed in most hymns that can be a touch point for folks. Compared to the chanting style, I'd imagine hymns were being discussed as being too complicated melodically, lyrically, etc. Today, oftentimes, hymns are the more difficult to sing because so many are not widely known.
I've tried to teach that if there is a song you don't know, then pray and intercede while it is sung through a couple times. Listen to the lyrics and use those as prayer points.
I can understand why people wanted to make changes to "Sloppy Wet Kiss" - it's hard to explain it to everyone every time you sing it, & it's an artistic call, but WHO in their right might would make that change to Redman? I mean, seriously - the original is practically a quotation of Scripture? There's nothing moderately confusing, or misleading in it - it's just straight up Biblical truth. I don't know - if someone suggested that change, I'd be tempted to find another church to lead it. I find the suggestion that offensive. Ridiculous.
As to the person who suggested that Job somehow "repented" of that theology, I don't know what Bible you're reading, but the author of Job makes it pretty clear that in ALL that Job spoke He never spoke wrong of God in that whole book - and he's the ONLY person that didn't speak wrong of God. Job's theology is dead on all the way through... he walks the path honorably, & it a great example of the faith for us under the same circumstances.
I don't know if you can say that Job never spoke wrongly of God in the entire book (otherwise, why would God have had to rebuke Job from the whirlwind)?
But at the beginning of the book the author makes it pretty clear that Job "passed" Satan's original test - Satan claimed, in so many words, that Job's love for God was conditional because of all that God had given him and that if God took away Job's blessings then Job would curse God, thus revealing the conditionality of his love.
Instead, Job revealed the unconditional nature of his love and trust in God (even despite his wife's protests [Job 2:9-10]) by blessing God (Job 1:21) and properly acknowledging God as the ultimate source of both blessing and difficulty.
But it does appear that later on in the book (just before God's appearance) that Job was essentially trying to justify himself before God, which is likely what precipitated the divine appearance and rebuke.
Job was NEVER rebuked for speaking anything untrue... in fact, Job 1:22 - immediately after Job attributed both "giving" and "taking away" to the Lord, Himself, it was said of Job, "In all of this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." Much later, in Job 42:7 God adds, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." Again, God verifies that the only person consistently speaking truth in the book of Job is Job himself. God's "rebuke" of Job (if we can call it that) is one of attitude - Job, after answering so many criticisms & accusations has basically stated that he wants a face-to-face with God to declare His innocence & question Him... THAT is what God puts Job in his place for with one very hearty, "WHO are YOU?". And Job immediately responds to that revelation properly - with worship. But what Job spoke of God is consistently confirmed by God through-out the book...