Great thoughts. I'm grateful that Redman doesn't focus on being manly for manliness' (blokeliness?) sake, but seeks to focus on God as He has revealed Himself in scripture. When we see the responses that people had to God in scripture, we are able to have appropriate responses when God reveals Himself to us. If a man, humbled before his sovereign king, responded with words of eros-laden affection, it would be an inappropriate response, and it's no surprise that worship songs that use such imagery fail to connect to many men.I am happy to see songs being written that strive to reveal God as He has revealed Himself to us. Thanks for the post, Gary.
I think Redman gives a truly fantastic response to a very difficult (nearly impossible) question. It's obvious that he's really given this a lot of thought, and I appreciate the humility of his character and his answer. As to the question itself, I think that the "bloke" in the church did have a point. While I do think that those songs can be wonderful and certainly do have their place, if it were all we sang, or even if they're just overdone, it could get very uncomfortable for a lot of people, and I think in the long run, women too would become uncomfortable if that type of song was used to the exclusion of others. I guess this too calls for balance.
I appreciate Redman's desire to be scriptural in his songwriting. I find that sometimes I'll write a lyric just because "that's what worship songs say." It's important to always be checking our worship through the lens of scripture and culture-- how does this align with what we read in scripture and how will it be perceived by those who hear it?And, yes, I did steal this video for my blog. And yes, this comment is the body of said blog. Thanks for the post!
I am also grateful for all the nice posts you guys made. I will listen to some of those songs. Songs should be meant for all. Limiting it to "blokes" will limit the message.
Post a Comment