I suppose that I am 'about' to 'out' myself, as an absolute pinhead. I, for reasons, some of which may be unbeknownst, even to myself, continue to be uncomfortable with the verbal appendage to the song Here I am to Worship. In the first place, I do not particularly appreciate the song itself - as it is written, and as it is sung, in the context of corporate, or congregational, 'worship': Oh God, in case you hadn't noticed, "here I am to worship". Don't you know the effort I expended to haul myself to this place, and aren't you just so impressed? Aren't you just so lucky that I made this supreme effort? I really would, at this point in my life, just like to emphasize where I am at this precise moment, and what I'm doing. Anyone up there taking note of this? Didn't I say "pinhead"?
Well, the song could be made somewhat more palatable with a simple alteration. We could easily swap-out the word "I", for the word "we", to allow it to more accurately reflect a corporate emphasis - but that would not address the issue of the inane, incongruous, and incomprehensible appendage, "and I'll (we'll?) never know how much it cost, to see my (our) sin upon that cross".
I know that it is quite 'not impossible' for us to make some sense of that portion of the lyrics, but why the necessity of performing mental gymnastics? Why the necessity of having to un-twist this grammatically tortured linguistic pretzel? Let's take a look at what I, in my often, admittedly flawed perceptions, see as problematic, at best.
First of all, the conjunction 'and' endeavors to conjoin two broadly divergent trains of thought (for want of better terminology). Think of it this way: "here I am to worship, and I'll never know how much it cost......". It's like trying to swim in two streams (rivers) at the same time, or, maybe, alternately swimming upstream and downstream. That may be a frivolous observation, but hardly begins to deal with the real problems: what does it mean, to say that I'll never know? Does that intend to create in me an eternal dissatisfaction with my less than omniscient state?
What did it cost to see my sin upon that cross? Let's try that, with the emphasis on the word 'did'. What did it cost? Now, let's read it with the emphasis on the word 'cost'. What did it cost?
Now, let's advance to the concept of, "to see (seeing) my sin upon that cross". What does that mean? Might I suggest that it cost(s) nothing "to see my sin upon that cross"? It's a false paradigm - when we exchange an inane "to see" for an eternally substantive "to be". Seeing what is is apart from, and different from what actually occurred "upon that cross". The cost, of which I (we) will never have full comprehension, was paid, was experienced. The infinitive 'to see' is abysmally inadequate to even minimally comprehend the implications of the cross.
Besides which, who is the song referring to, in terms of the one who is, rightly, the one who is doing the seeing? Is God the One whom we have diminished to this conjectural "to see"? An objective "to be" should be greatly preferable to an incomprehensible "to see", in this instance. "To see" muddies the waters of intelligibility. Seeing my sin pales into insignificance, in light of being my sin, my sin-bearer. You say, well, that's what it means. That's my point; it doesn't say what it means - unless it means nothing more than an unintelligibly garbled, non-sensical 'filler' for a song that is problematic in its about me (I) emphasis.
Oh, not to mention, among whom the song is (has been) wildly popular! As I recall, PC&D , (they of non-trinitarian proclivities) has an album featuring this song as the title 'offering'.
Didn't I say "pinhead"?
Okay, okay, so it did cost God His Son, but it wasn't really about seeing, per se, so much as it was about the being and the doing. And I'll never need to know, but I'll ever need to embrace the person who bore my sin upon that cross. I really can know how much it cost - I will know in much greater measure, but it's not true that I'll never know, and if not, it'll be because I will never need to know. The song obfuscates the issue, and that I know right well!
Well, the song could be made somewhat more palatable with a simple alteration. We could easily swap-out the word "I", for the word "we", to allow it to more accurately reflect a corporate emphasis - but that would not address the issue of the inane, incongruous, and incomprehensible appendage, "and I'll (we'll?) never know how much it cost, to see my (our) sin upon that cross".
I know that it is quite 'not impossible' for us to make some sense of that portion of the lyrics, but why the necessity of performing mental gymnastics? Why the necessity of having to un-twist this grammatically tortured linguistic pretzel? Let's take a look at what I, in my often, admittedly flawed perceptions, see as problematic, at best.
First of all, the conjunction 'and' endeavors to conjoin two broadly divergent trains of thought (for want of better terminology). Think of it this way: "here I am to worship, and I'll never know how much it cost......". It's like trying to swim in two streams (rivers) at the same time, or, maybe, alternately swimming upstream and downstream. That may be a frivolous observation, but hardly begins to deal with the real problems: what does it mean, to say that I'll never know? Does that intend to create in me an eternal dissatisfaction with my less than omniscient state?
What did it cost to see my sin upon that cross? Let's try that, with the emphasis on the word 'did'. What did it cost? Now, let's read it with the emphasis on the word 'cost'. What did it cost?
Now, let's advance to the concept of, "to see (seeing) my sin upon that cross". What does that mean? Might I suggest that it cost(s) nothing "to see my sin upon that cross"? It's a false paradigm - when we exchange an inane "to see" for an eternally substantive "to be". Seeing what is is apart from, and different from what actually occurred "upon that cross". The cost, of which I (we) will never have full comprehension, was paid, was experienced. The infinitive 'to see' is abysmally inadequate to even minimally comprehend the implications of the cross.
Besides which, who is the song referring to, in terms of the one who is, rightly, the one who is doing the seeing? Is God the One whom we have diminished to this conjectural "to see"? An objective "to be" should be greatly preferable to an incomprehensible "to see", in this instance. "To see" muddies the waters of intelligibility. Seeing my sin pales into insignificance, in light of being my sin, my sin-bearer. You say, well, that's what it means. That's my point; it doesn't say what it means - unless it means nothing more than an unintelligibly garbled, non-sensical 'filler' for a song that is problematic in its about me (I) emphasis.
Oh, not to mention, among whom the song is (has been) wildly popular! As I recall, PC&D , (they of non-trinitarian proclivities) has an album featuring this song as the title 'offering'.
Didn't I say "pinhead"?
Okay, okay, so it did cost God His Son, but it wasn't really about seeing, per se, so much as it was about the being and the doing. And I'll never need to know, but I'll ever need to embrace the person who bore my sin upon that cross. I really can know how much it cost - I will know in much greater measure, but it's not true that I'll never know, and if not, it'll be because I will never need to know. The song obfuscates the issue, and that I know right well!
5 comments:
Excellent dissection! I have long gnashed my teeth when this song is offered in Sunday worship. I have even, softly, under my breath, performed just the "fix" you suggest, swapping "we" for "I" through the chorus.
Perhaps you could post a follow up exploring the "Here I am to..." theme. In my under-the-breath participation, I have forgone uttering these words at all, instead singing something like, "Oh-oh-oh we worship, oh-oh-oh we bow down, oh-oh-oh we say, 'You're our God'".
"Very nice that you're here, friend, and that you're here to worship, but saying "I'm here to worship" is not the same thing as worshiping."
The appendage - or "bridge," as some might call it - is indeed the worst part of the whole song. It's the armpit (a nasty, stinky, pimply armpit) of cheap words. Inanity. This song is INANE in the highest.
Pilgrim, I've 'agonized' over posting what may appear to be uncharitable, and contentious. I don't want to be that way. I repent of whatever pride may have goaded my thoughts - but I'm pretty sure that we ought to maintain our Sunday morning (especially) worship, as a corporate perspective. That may be a primary reason that we disdain so much of the rockin'-hollerin', arm wavin' that predominates in charismania. In the context of 'the church gathered, the I should be subsumed into we. I'm breathing a sigh of relief that someone, anyone, shares my prospective.
Pilgrim,
I might 'hesitate' to post a follow-up. However, in the spirit of the song writer, I might deign to resort to a series of infinitives: "to worship"; "to see"; "to say", touche; et tu; et al! To hide inside a litany of "tos" could be to attempt to garner a corner on the market to ambiguity! IMO, CCM, by & large (B&L), STYNX!
I'm ever given to hyperbole. I blame a culture of exaggeration. And the public schools.
I was thinking about it some more, and it occurred to me that there are worse songs out there. Some of the good aspects of this song:
It actually talks about sin being put upon the cross.
It acknowledges the kenosis of Christ, the condescension required to save sinners.
It does give credit for spiritual sight to God, who opens our eyes and lets us see.
Alas, I also thought of some more bad aspects:
"All for love's sake..." is misleading. It's more of the same ambiguous sentimentality.
The lines are choppy, disjointed (see esp. the last two lines of the first verse). Conjunctions are needed, and definite articles; a thought may or may not directly relate to the next.
So much of the song is true, "in a sense." But like virtually all modern art, it is made to be rather ambiguous, so the hearer/singer/worshiper can ascribe his own meaning to the words. To borrow Francis Schaeffer's "connotation words" observation, the lyrics to this song are full of connotation, but not content.
Which is, of course, what you said in the first place, Spencer.
It was those true perceptions and "good aspects" that prompted my misgivings about posting so vitriolic an 'expose'. I agree with your specifics, and actually prefer them - to my own hazy generalities - if (where) such they were!
Post a Comment