Wow.
Has it really gotten this bad?
Sitting in Church today I witnessed a man who doesn't even go to my church (we brought him in) perform an offeratory that was nothing short of angering.
I HATE "RELIGION" AND ALL THE CLICHE "CHRISTIAN" BULL THAT COMES WITH IT.
He "performed" the Sarah MacLachlan song "In the Arms of the Angel"....
Wait...you don't remember that being a worship song or a song with any exclusive Christian truth in it at all?
THAT'S BECAUSE IT ISN'T.
It's a song about a crack addict.
Well, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I guess you could argue that he didn't sing "In the Arms of the Angel". Not exactly. No, actually, he did a completely different song. It's just that that completely different song happened to have the same tune and music as "In the Arms of the Angel" and many of the same words of the song as well. But instead of being "In the Arms of the Angel" we are now, "In the Arms of the Savior".
That's right.
We've officially run out of ideas.
One day, someone actually said: " You know I really like that Sarah MacLachlan song "In the Arms of the Angel" but...something's missing. Oh yeah! My "religion" isn't shoved into certain convenient places."
Maybe I wouldn't have been as mad if they had completely re-written the song, or sang the original. But they tweaked it so that it was "just" acceptable for Church by throwing in a Jesus or a lamb here in there.
"But wait," thought said tweaker, "isn't this copywright infringement?...No...haha. I'm sure Sarah meant "In the Arms of the Savior", I'm just clarifying it."
Maybe I'm going too far.(Apologies for all who think I am.) But how a person can regard something like this as worshipful is beyond me. It's not worshipful because you're using a piece of art, or self-expression, that wasn't intended to worship God with and through changing the words you are therefore forcing the real creator of the piece to worship. This is insincere worship, unoriginal worship, and overall un-passionate worship. (maybe that's a word...)
And maybe I'm foolish for freaking out about this like I am, but I'm sick and tired of watching, my faith hide under the guise of "religion" or even worse "Christianity", be so ashamed of itself that even when we are within the walls of out own Sanctuaries we have to wear the mask of Secular society. Even in Sanctuary we have become so obsessed with being acceptable to everyone's taste or "cool buds" on the worldly tongues that we have all developed, and falling into the very trap that Secular society has set that is: our being completely uncomfortable with the fact that WE HAVE PURPOSE IN LIFE. That we AREN'T like THEM and their acceptance of having no purpose and being cool, while we are considered "weird" and know TRUE love.
Brothers and sisters,
We ARE weird.
We Are different.
We ARE NOT cool.
But...
We ARE set apart...holy.
You know what is worshipful to God?
Sincere human creation of worship. Our sharing in our roles as creators with Him in a faithful way. Not ruining an otherwise okay song by shoving Jesus down it's throat. Trust me, when Ms. MacLachlan finished writing "In the Arms of the Angel" , God wasn't wishing that she had written it about Him instead of her crack addict friend. God moves us in our creation of worshipful acts. But...hiding behind this truth I have just stated after you have tweaked a song "for Jesus" is wrong on several levels.
And I know that most of the ancient Hymns we sing today in Church were just Christian prose set to Secular music of that period. That's one thing. But, these secular arrangements didn't have words to begin with as does our song in question. They were simply popular arrangements of music. AND THEY WEREN'T COPYWRIGHTED. In fact they were incomplete until the prose was later added. God used one person for the Truth and another for the beauty in these instances...But in Sarah's case, she, in her mind, completed both of those tasks with just herself. She wrote the music and she wrote the words. The music suits the words and vice versa. She FELT the WORDS SHE WROTE and that's why the music creates the mood that it does. If Ms. MacLachlan had intended to write a song to God...she would have.
And get this....
We wouldn't have to "tweak" it for our "Church Time Ears".
Please, leave artist's work as it was originally intended. Especially secular society's. This doesn't mean do not concern yourself with it. I encourage Christians to appreciate Secular art. Appreciate the stuff they get right. Learn from the stuff they don't as to guard your heart from it. But, don't ever feel as if though your faith in Christ means that your love songs aren't as good as their love songs. If in Christ we can truly do all things, don't you think original worship falls under this?
Ponder this:
Why in Christian society do we make every attempt possible to condemn the world and seperate ourselves from secular society, (radio,Music industry, TV, Magazines, Books, movies...etc.) yet within our own walls that we wear their costumes so well?
ISN'T IT HOT UNDER THAT MASK YET?
Just as a treat...here's a REAL worship song.
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh377.sht
Feel free to love or hate on me for this...seriously I can take it.
Good Providence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I love your passion Wayne!!! It's so awesome. I have over the past few weeks been beating at the same problem in some of my writings.
If we are God's chosen, then why can't write or sing something of our own creation? And if it doesn't use the name of Christ... Is that really so bad??? For something to be Christan, must it be "Christian"??? And by tweaking a few words in a song to make it "Christian" (or what we call Christian), we are really showing our own narrow mindedness. Not that such a song would be appropriate to wroship God with, tweaking it to make it "proper" seems a greater error.
K, there's my sermon.
By the way, my church's music rocked. awesome guitar.
"May the Pg's befriend you."
Thanks Michael.
Wow.... That's about all I can say. Talk to me in detail later... Wow.
nice oicture catfish!!!!!! ahaha i cant handle it
did you mean **picture**??
No dummy he really meant 'OICTURE'...
chill out, queer!
Yeah? and what are you going to do about it? You don't even know me so Shut up.
i'm lovin this post. i totally agree...its like mr smith always said...christianity isnt jus a foot note or a bracelet, etc. but yet that is how it is exposed to people. they'll never know what its all about and dont want to know just because our stupidity to be narrow minded....thats all i gotta say cept ya'll need to chill bout the oicture thing...becca was jus askin if the anonymous person meant picture instead. no biggie and no reason to get upset bout it lance...whoever you are!
yeah lance shut up you fag.
This was given to me tonight at church in our Bible study and i thought it kinda went along w/ this post:
Am I A Christian
Would I be called a Christian
if everybody knew
My secret thoughts and
feelings and everything I do?
Or could they see the likeness
of Christ in me each day?
Or, could they hear Him
speaking in every word I say?
Would I be called a Christian
if everyone could know
That I am found in places
where Jesus would not go?
Or, would they hear His echo
in every song I sing?
In eating, drinking, dressing,
could they see Christ, my King?
jus thought it was pretty neat...hope you enjoy!
no. i hate typos. go lance!
lance is a queer
omg...jus drop it!
Lance is all powerfull!
Praises to Lance!
yeh that's cool...praise yourself?? yeh whateva!
I think lance is a hottie...with a body.
Lance gets the ladies!
Alright for Lance!
Lance is not a queer.
Lance will punch your faces!
Post a Comment