A Response to Sheologians’ Criticism of “Reckless Love”

I've listened to the Sheologians podcast since their first episode. They were my "gateway drug" into a more serious study and love for Reformed theology. I've enjoyed their sarcasm, banter, quirkiness and YES! the giggling.

But to be honest, I am not technically "historically Reformed" in some of my theological views and practices as many Sheologians fans are. I don't hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship. I am a long-time church musician who plays songs like Reckless Love on a regular basis.

It is ironically because of these things that I feel able to respond to their content. Sheologians invites direct, edifying dialogue with people different from them. Summer and Joy are not the type of ladies to speak without thinking.

So, I have a few things I'd like to say in response to their post criticizing the new Bethel Worship song, Reckless Love.

I recommend reading the two links above before you read my thoughts. And please know my thoughts are not intended to thoroughly respond to every single point of their post. I'm not claiming any scholarly authority on these things. I'm a layperson.

Furthermore, I know that they have updated the post to claim that they are only responding to the composer's explanation of the song and not the song itself. It seems apparent to me that their post was in criticism of both the song and explanation. More on this below.

Here goes nothing.

Worship Songs that Center on "Me Me Me"

I've heard this type of criticism from many people of various generations -- I studied sacred music at a conservative Bible college. I mean, come on.

I agree that some songs tell stories that don't include or mention God. Those would not be considered worship songs.

However Reckless Love mentions a lot of both the singing protagonist and God, and this is not unscriptural or selfish. To demonstrate this I'll go through the song's lyrics and then point out Scriptural prayers from God's inerrant word that are very similar in tone.

Lyrics

Sheologians focuses mostly on the author's explanation of the song. They make the point that his explanation of the song cannot be divorced from the lyrics. I disagree with this point and see no harm in the lyrics of the song itself, regardless of the author's explanation. I'll talk more about the origins of the song below.

On to the lyrics: I find that almost every line of this song mentions both God and the singer. Therefore we should expect that there will be an equal amount first and second person pronouns. There is a relational, loving transaction happening here. It is a prayer of thanksgiving for salvation from the one who was saved to the One who saved them.

The singer prays like this:

"Before I spoke a word, You were singing over me", quoting Zeph. 3:17 and Psalm 139:4.

"You've been so, so good to me" (repeated in both verses); God is good. Psalm 145. Besides the general revelation of God's creating and sustaining of all things, the singer acknowledges God's goodness in saving them.

"You breathed your life in me"; Regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

"You have been so, so kind to me" (repeated in both verses); His kindness leads us to repentance (Rom 2). He is patient with us.

"When I was your foe, still your love fought for me"; Romans 5:8.

"When I felt no worth, you paid it all for me"; the singer has nothing to pay for his sins apart from Christ's blood.

And the controversial chorus with the clincher word -- "reckless":

"Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending reckless love of God"; the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:19), the love of Christ that never fails or ends (Rom. 8:31-39, 1 Cor 13:8).

The word "reckless" without the context of this song is a bit of a stretch to refer to God's love. But within this context it makes sense. God refers to himself by the name Jealous, as he is jealous for Israel's devotion (Ex 34:14) and through the Lord's actions in Exodus you can see abundant proof of his jealousy for his people.

Even more, God gives his son for his people. If we don't want to use the word reckless, we could at least say it's extreme, unexpected, mind-boggling, and definitely "unfair". "He who did not spare his own Son but graciously gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" Rom. 8:32.

Most of all, I believe the word reckless is fitting with the next line:

"Oh, it chases me down, fights 'til I'm found, leaves the ninety-nine"; which is pretty much slang for how irresistible his grace truly is.

It is also a reference to the parable of the shepherd who rejoices over one sheep that he left the other ninety nine to find (Matt. 18). This parable is similar to one about a man who finds a high-dollar pearl in a field and then recklessly sells all he has to buy that field (Matt. 13). Or it could be next to the parable about a woman who recklessly tears apart her house looking for a lost coin, and rejoices in the midst of her messy house once it is found (Luke 15).

These parables are comparable to the prodigal son parable (also Luke 15), where the regal master of the house/Father irreverently runs to greet his long-lost, rebellious, disrespectful yet repentant son.

From a worldly and pragmatic perspective it is reckless and degrading to love someone who decidedly does not love you in return -- to give your life and only Son for people who don't deserve or want it in and of themselves.

"I couldn't earn it, I don't deserve it, still You give yourself away"; We Calvinistic people get the first two phrases very well. The list of Scriptures in the Sheologians critique is about this. The last phrase seems to point to the continuing effects of Christ's blood, the fact that our redemption doesn't stop with justification; in other words, that our sanctification still wholly depends on the fact that God gives himself to us. In simpler terms, God gives his love to us continually even when we ignore or refuse it.

This song is about our "relationship with God", to borrow an old "evangelical" phrase. It's the outworking of his covenant with us in Christ. I see in it Scriptural word pictures of God's loving and saving acts done toward us. Of course it mentions "me me me", but equally mentions "He He He".

So yes, salvation and worship is ultimately all about God and his glory, but it is about us too. I wish more Reformed-leaning friends would be comfortable with that.

Scriptural "Me Me Me" Prayers

So, above I went through the song and shared how I see Scriptural and even Calvinistic truths in most of the phrases.

But in Scripture we can see a lot of "me me me" stuff. Often, when someone prays to the Lord who is united to him by covenant, they pray like this. They are like a "friend of God" justified by the same faith that justified Abraham (James 2:23). God sees every detail of their lives and shows his care in them (Matt 10:30, 1 Pet 5:7).

Please consider just some of the many prayers we find in Scripture that use a ridiculous, even "selfish" amount of first person pronouns, personal testimony, and life story: The Lord's Prayer. Psalm 23. Definitely Psalm 139. Hannah's prayer in Samuel 2. David's prayers in 2 Sam 7. Mary in Luke 1. Jesus in John 17. Psalm 25. Psalm 119. Psalm 22. Abraham in Genesis 18:22-33.

I don't believe those inerrant prayers are only descriptive of praise and worship. They are prescriptive for ours.

It's from Bethel, Duh

So yeah, Bethel Church is off its rocker. I think it qualifies psychologically as a cult and has theologically cultish tendencies.

But if we sing this song we will not become cultish. We will not drop gold dust from the ceiling onto our congregations. We will not create "fire tunnels" with rows of hands.

In singing this song, congregants will not automatically believe that God is not sovereign in salvation. They will not automatically believe that God is their boyfriend or Santa Clause or that he is made in the human image. They will not fall into idolatry. The Lord is able to make them stand (Rom. 14:4).

Rather, what happens when we sing this song in the local church is that we get a chance to musically meditate on the nature of God's love for us. We realize that it is not begrudgingly given, that it was far from a heartless obligation. We allow our hearts to be stirred with holy feelings and "religious affections". We find joy in receiving God's love for us. We feel comfortable coming to God for help (Hebrews 4:16) and no longer need to be ashamed of the fact that we need his love and grace.

If we in the Reformed community love the writings and thoughts of the Reformers -- many of whom had significant sins and failings, yet were used of God in spite of it to do great things -- then why can't we allow in our minds that one worship song (with questionable origins yet lyrics that often cite Scripture) will be used by God for good in his sovereign plan?

Concluding Thoughts and Romans 14

This song may cause some people to stumble; some people will not be able to worship in spirit and in truth with this song. I get that. We don't have to sing it.

But it is not good to decide that a song describing God's saving love using common language and several first person pronouns is in and of itself harmful and cannot be used of God. It is also not good to take it even a step further and decide that any church which sings this song is straying from the whole counsel of God.

In fact, I believe that declaring this song to be fundamentally flawed is unnecessarily "passing judgment" on brothers and sisters in Christ who sing it (Romans 14:1, 10, 13, etc.). Using the word "reckless" and singing about ourselves being saved by God is a "disputable matter" or a matter of opinion (Rom 14:1). Using a good song written by a non-Reformed community is also a disputable matter.

On the contrary, this song is a good and melodically beautiful way to describe how God loves us -- when used as any other worship song should be used, i.e. in the context of Scripture, exegetical preaching and a variety of songs.