You hit a hot button here. My former pastor probably still remembers our conversation about "Reckless Love".
There are many songs that are thoughtful, uplifting, and enjoyable to listen to, but are they really worship songs? Let's be honest...what passes as worship music today are songs created for consumption. They're designed to stir passions and emotions. Too many of them romanticize the gospel in ways that shift the focus away from God and indulge the flesh. Don't get me wrong, I listen to a lot of contemporary Christian music, but only 10% qualifies as "worship" music.
I totally understand your point in this article. It doesn't want possible to fully understand our salvation without understanding the roots, the foundation, that it's built on.
What I think you might be missing here is that not all CCM is written to, or from the viewpoint of, people who have this level of understanding.
Songs like the ones you reference are written from the viewpoint of people who don't yet understand the deeper things of their faith. I've done terrible things in my life and as a new believer I really wondered " out of all the people You could reach out to and bring out from that mirey clay, why me?"
So many times I've thought the words of these songs about myself, "You think I'm worthy of Your Grace when I think I'm awful.". "You've saved me from myself so many times, even up to commiting suicide.". Things that I cannot wrap my head around. Things that no man would ever do for me.
It's so huge and amazing and all these songwriters are trying to express that awe and bewilderment of the newly saved coming to terms with what that means.
It isn't covanental, it's messy and sometimes not exact, but it expresses the emotions and rawness of salvation in a way that many can personally understand.
That’s raw, honest perspective. Thank you for sharing it. There is always something that resonates… you showed the other side, that’s what it’s all about. 🙏
I’m not so down on CCM as many, but there’s definitely a point to the criticisms. It’s hard to find a worship song that isn’t big on the personal pronouns these days.
It’s good to have a relationship, yes, but I don’t want to be singing about me all the time.
Mark, I agree with you on the pronouns—good catch. “Amazing Grace” is beautiful about grace and mercy, no question. My only push is that it doesn’t really address covenant relationship, and when covenant gets softened, we lose the weight of it. And honestly, I wonder if the constant “I/me” language has shaped people subconsciously over the years toward an individual-first lens. 🤔
It's definitely natural to extoll the work of God by reference to the most personally meaningful and powerful such work, and to at the same time declare our commitment in response.
But sometimes it seems to transition from being about God primarily to being about me.
My point is that many hymns do not survive the criticisms we level at contemporary worship. For instance, N. T. Wright argues that a new creation is our destiny, not an eternity in heaven, but most hymns make heaven the goal. The Psalms by the way are also filled personal experiences and personal pronouns.
Oh, I both agree and disagree with this. I fully agree that the Old Covenant must be remembered, studied, and understood, especially if we want to properly understand the New Covenant. Where I disagree is with what feels like a symptom-focused approach. I believe we should be addressing the bigger picture.
It seems to me that there is an effort to erase the name of Israel from history and from collective memory, and naturally this effort targets the Old Covenant heavily. Even the way many Christians speak as if the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are different, in my opinion, is part of the same issue.
I do not understand why I cannot grasp covenant theology with us gentiles.
“The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all people.”
We gentiles are not the fewest of all peoples. We are everyone but the fewest. How does this work according to this verse?
Finally, do we not believe that God pursues us? I truly believe He pursued me, intentionally. I can understand the verses that ask, why me? Because I can’t figure out why He was so gracious and merciful, when I did not do one thing to redeem myself in His eyes as I rejected Him for so long.
Sergio, thank you for your patience with me. I frustrate myself that I cannot grasp covenant theology.
That verse is not about Gentiles. Deuteronomy is speaking to Israel as a specific people and nation, explaining why God chose them in history. He did not choose them because they were impressive or numerous. He chose them because He set His covenant love on them and kept His oath.
Gentiles are not brought in the same way. We are not elected as a separate nation to replace Israel. We are saved and included through Messiah by grace. That is why Paul uses the grafting picture in Romans 11. Gentiles are brought into Israel’s blessings through faith, not by taking Israel’s name or canceling Israel’s calling.
And yes, God absolutely pursues individuals. Your testimony fits the gospel perfectly. God pursued you, showed mercy, and saved you when you had nothing to offer. That is personal salvation grace. Deuteronomy 7 is national covenant election. They are different categories, but both display the same God who loves first and saves by mercy.
Chiming in here… so, instead of thinking of a predetermined elect individual, we have become part of the elect by His grace when we were saved; it’s not the other way around right? We joined. We are not individuals elected, but individuals who became part of the elect, those chosen in Him to do good works etc.
The ‘why me’ question is a mystery right? We have no idea, except that we heard and responded and joined.
Scripture says Gentiles are “brought near” in Messiah (Eph. 2:12–13) and “grafted in” to Israel’s olive tree (Rom. 11:17–24). That’s participation in the promises through Israel’s Messiah, not replacing Israel or taking ownership of Israel’s covenants (Rom. 9:4).
So the “blessings” are things like forgiveness, reconciliation to God, the Spirit, and the resurrection hope (Eph. 1:13; Rom. 8:11). In other words: gentiles get brought into the life of the covenant by Messiah … 🙏
I agree that Gentiles are described as being “brought near” in Messiah (Ephesians 2:12-13) and “grafted in” among the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:17-24). I also agree that Gentiles do not replace Israel or take ownership of Israel’s covenants (Rom. 9:4).
What I’m trying to understand is this:
Where does Scripture explicitly say that being “brought near” or “grafted in” places Gentiles under Israel’s national constitution (Torah)?
When you say “Israel’s blessings,” I notice the blessings you list, forgiveness, reconciliation, the Spirit, resurrection, are all universal covenant blessings, not blessings unique to Israel’s Torah covenant.
So where does Scripture define these as Torah blessings rather than blessings of restored relationship to God's universal household through His Son as the Kinsman-Redeemer?
I agree with your categories. The NT never says, “Gentiles are now under Israel’s national constitution” in a modern political sense. What it does say is that in Messiah, Gentiles move from being “strangers to the covenants of promise” to being “fellow citizens” and members of the same household (Eph. 2:12, 19). That’s covenant language, not mere “spiritual proximity.”
Here’s why I call those “Israel’s blessings” without claiming Gentiles seize Israel’s covenants:
• The New Covenant itself is explicitly made with Israel/Judah (Jer. 31:31–34). Gentiles share in it only by union with Israel’s Messiah and incorporation into His people (Rom. 11:17–18; John 4:22). So yes, the blessings are universal in reach — but they arrive through Israel’s covenant storyline, not apart from it.
• The “universal” blessings you listed (forgiveness, Spirit, resurrection) are the exact restoration promises tied to Israel’s return-to-covenant hope: heart renewal / Spirit (Ezek. 36:26–27), return and obedience (Deut. 30:1–6), atonement and healing (Isa. 53), Spirit poured out (Joel 2:28–32). Universal doesn’t mean “de-Israelized.” It means Israel’s hope becomes the nations’ hope.
• As for Torah: Scripture repeatedly frames God’s instruction as the shared way of life for the covenant community, including the “sojourner” who joins himself to YHWH (Ex. 12:49; Num. 15:15–16; Isa. 56:6–7). That’s not replacement; it’s one redeemed household learning one King’s ways.
So I’m not arguing “Gentiles become ethnic Israel” or “Torah keeps you saved.” I’m saying: being grafted in makes you part of the covenant people, and God’s covenant people have a covenant way of life. The blessings are “Israel’s” because they were promised to Israel and come through Israel’s Messiah — and then they overflow to the nations exactly as promised (Gen. 12:3; Rom. 11:12).
I think this is where we differ: “The household of God” is not synonymous with Israel. Scripture presents God’s household as universal from Adam forward, with Israel later formed as a nation within that household and given a specific land-based, priestly vocation. This is why Scripture speaks of Israel, and of the nations, and why Israel is given a national constitution that does not include the nations. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the household of God is Israel itself. It predates Israel.
Ephesians 2 restores Gentiles to belonging and access to God's universal household, not to Israel’s national jurisdiction. Likewise, the blessings you describe, Spirit, forgiveness, resurrection, are not “Israel’s” in origin; they precede Israel and belong to God’s universal covenant purposes. Israel is the nation through which the Seed comes whose roots are traced back through Abraham to Adam (in Luke) showing that the blessing comes through Israel, it is not the source of the blessing itself.
Israel’s Torah governs Israel. The household of God already exists under the Adamic covenant. Priests (Israel) serve God's universal household; the universal household does not become the priesthood. If all are under Torah as priests then Israel's distinction collapses into the nations.
That’s why I see Gentiles sharing in the fruit of Israel’s Messiah because He is also promised in Genesis 3:15 to Adam before Israel existed as the Kinsman-Redeemer without being placed under Israel’s national constitution.
Yeshua plays two roles. They are for two different covenants. One is the heir of David, to rule over Israel. The other is the Kinsman-Redeemer of the entire universal household, who restores all nations to the household of God, not Israel.
I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I believe Israel and the Jews were given the law to show what sin looked like. God knew that man was evil from the beginning, so Jesus was always His plan. Once Jesus came, the one the prophets spoke of from the beginning, to the Jews, He was the new covenant. Some Jews saw it and knew that Jesus was the savior promised from the beginning, some missed it. That covenant is finished. We are in the new covenant. Now, I don’t think God is finished with the Jews. Some will see that Jesus is the one promised, the savior of the world, before it’s too late. That’s why it’s our job as Christians to be serious about our work of sharing the gospel with even the Jewish people. They had their hearts hardened so that the good news would be preached to the gentiles (by Jesus-believing Jews!) I don’t think people who are Jewish in name only are going to be saved automatically, they have to confess Jesus.
Sergio, Thank you so much for your teachings here. I was brought up in the Good News/ liberal Presbytian Church that saw Christianity and Judahism as two difference religions. It did not satisfy my spiritual longing or crack me open to direct Divine energy. I was looking at the Dead Sea scrolls, interpreted by Gnostic academics. Again, no spiritual fit. Now with knowledge I have gained from you, Scott and others here, I have found the ground I have been searching for. I had connected my Christianity to my family, and ancestors to feel grounded in belief. Now with the truth of the Covenent as my grounding, I feel truly rooted in the Yeshua's teachings. It is an entirely different religion.
I feel very blessed to have discovered true Christianity at 70 years old.
Not just our church but our society in general is narcissistic. It's all about us. Our felt needs, our past trauma, we deserve xyz. Its not about us. It never was. God created - to the praise of His glory!
Our worship should be praise of the God of Israel who created ALL PEOPLE and loves ALL PEOPLE not just me and mine. It's about what can we say, what can we do that brings glory - TO GOD.
Chris Bowater's quote was encouraging budding songwriters to be thorough in their research, crafting and musicianship of a song - seeking advice from those with more knowledge or skill than them, not seeking approval.
Did I misunderstand what you meant? Please clarify.
Here’s what I meant: getting feedback from knowledgeable people is wise. My concern is the framing some of us have absorbed where a “theologian” becomes the gatekeeper of what’s permissible, like their stamp is what sets truth free.
So yes, pursue excellence and counsel. Just keep the order right. Scripture is the measure, the Spirit leads, and teachers can help, but they’re not the court of final appeal.
That’s very freeing. We have become a generation that leans into expertism and doesn’t allow for our God-given ability to reason. Someone had to have an original thought once right… and then we canonised those thoughts into accepted theology.
Well, people are still capable of thinking for themselves, having ‘original thoughts’ guided by Scripture, the Spirit and what we have learned; figuring stuff out ourselves. Sometimes, having to stick rigidly to theological systems to guide us can be stifling, safe, but stifling. I was once asked why I felt I had to figure stuff out, when it’s all already been done, just read and learn the catechisms… seems lazy to my mind.
The slow shift while no one notices. No one realises.
That's why we need intergenerational, inter denominational, multiethnic, mixed up congregations and a variety of music genres from a variety of centuries.
Great essay, Sergio. The one that always got me is this: if I was the only one in the world, Christ would have died for me. That, from the only culture that could come up with the concept of a selfie. There are no professional theologians anymore. Anyone else out there who's read John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ."? (1684) wew that's a tough one to get thru. And just try all the happy talk about God's love that's spewed out in mental wards. If this is love...??? wth am I doing here? Look in the mirror and chant: God loves you because you deserve it. Not even the Wesleys would have spoken so irreverently.
When God called me to salvation, it wasn't too much later that I was exposed to contemporary Christian music. Had no idea it even existed.
The first thing that caught attention is how it seduced the flesh. Much of it was similar to the rock n roll I listened to growing up.
It didn't occur to me until later that the Church had become performative rather than substantive. So much of the music and worship was tied to the grand finale of the altar call.
It wasn't about worship. It was about having an experience. It was about appealing to my feelings. Yes it was and is narcissistic. It was literally like a rock concert.
It wasn't until later that I began seeing worship as a form of obedience. Being in the presence of The Father commands respect, awe and reverence.
I'm thankful for this always well done piece of work by someone who has blessed us with their blessings from The Lord!
Isn’t it crazy how the very principle of performance applies to almost every other area of modern christianity? You nailed it, Scott!. One thing from my world that hit hard was really digging into Ani Ma'amin, the backstory, the depth, and seeing thousands sing it at the wall. It was a huge lightbulb moment for me!
No leader, just a community pleading with song for their messiah to return.
This is an excellent essay on the infiltration of Replacement/Fulfillment Theology into modern "worship" songs.
Your point about Reckless Love is well taken and unfortunately, many congregations still sing this song. My main problem with it, however, is not just the title, nor the fact that it talks about God's pursuit of us, but that the entire song is false teaching at best and heretical at worst.
There is a deeper problem with the lyric that many miss. What is the song about? By that I mean, what is the alleged scriptural basis for Asbury's assertion about God’s “reckless love”.
Answer: The Parable of the Lost Sheep.
So let’s look at what Jesus was teaching to the assembled audience for the story. That parable is part of a pair - that then contrasts with a third.
The first two, the lost sheep and the lost coin, are aimed squarely at the Pharisees who accused Jesus of cavorting with sinners. In those two stories he places the assembled accusers in the role of shepherd/housewife and goes on to illustrate how they love objects (the lamb and the coin) so much they would do anything to find them. When they did find their lost object, they would rejoice greatly – and they would do so even over a possession. He then contrasts what they would do against what the Heavenly Father does. The father in the final story waits for his lost son and when the son finally does come to his senses, the Father runs to greet him in the driveway.
Notice the difference?
The first two are about the Pharisees love of things. It is about their materialism and how happy they are upon gaining back even a little of their lost property. The parable of the lost sheep is clearly not about Jesus searching for sinners at all. It is about how men rejoice at finding even a small bit of their possessions vs how heaven rejoices upon the repentance of the sinner. Further to this point, Jesus actually places the Pharisees in the role of the “99” as a backhanded way of granting their belief that they are the truly “righteous”. But of course, in the culminating parable, Jesus turns that around on them and places them in the metaphorical role of the angry and ungrateful older brother.
Jesus makes a point that, unlike the Pharisees, the Father cares about PEOPLE not things like livestock or coinage.
Ironically, as it relates to Asbury’s lyric, a major point of the story of the prodigal son is that the father does not “recklessly” go out in pursuit of his son at all! He doesn’t even send a search party of his hired help to go find the prodigal. What’s up with that? Didn’t Jesus just say He would leave the 99 sheep alone and go out with reckless abandon to find just the one?
No. we DID NOT just hear him say that.
He said the PHARISEES would do that. This contrasts to God’s behavior which waits for us to return to Him, at which time He will forgive what we’ve done and welcome us back with open arms just as the father did with his prodigal son.
But you see, Asbury ignores the point of these three parables because that would ruin his lyric.
We know God will never leave or forsake us and yet Asbury is saying that God DOES do that because He is “reckless”.
This is a false teaching and as long as Asbury continues to leave this nonsense on the public forums, I will continue to consider it the heresy that it is.
The comparative rejoicing of Heaven vs our rejoicing in material goods seems quite appropriate. I appreciate that thought.
I am generally very comfortable with challenging an interpretation in a parable, especially as it relates to who the characters represent. But in this case I think the stage is set as the Pharisees criticize Jesus for hanging out with the unclean.
But that was his mission. He came to seek and save the lost. So it does show the extent of God’s love and the lengths to which he chose to go to deliver his people and find his lost treasure. In much the same way as we underestimate Heaven’s rejoicing, we underestimate the full extent of God’s love. The average shepherd would do a cost-benefit analysis of recapturing the one sheep. The Lord of the universe, the truly good shepherd, can protect the 99 while moving, with unimaginable love, toward the one that is lost.
Both our jubilation and our love pale in comparison to His. —precisely as you say of the father—he doesn’t care about the possessions, his concern is for the sons.
There's so many things in the Bible that we can ponder and totally account for His love and grace, for sure. I agree that the parable itself is correcting the audience, however, I also agree that he would do anything, and he did everything to save the one lost sheep. Everybody matters to him. His love is tremendous. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Obviously God can protect his sheep but in this parable the shepherd is stated by Jesus Himself, to be the Pharisees. You miss the entire thrust of the parable if you place Jesus in the role of the shepherd since the shepherd in His story DOES NOT protect the 99 sheep and worse yet, recklessly loses one of them. Note that unlike Matthew 18 where the sheep wanders away of its own volition, this sheep doesn't wander away.
Jesus doesn't lose people and he certainly doesn't forsake us like the shepherd in the parable is said to do.
There’s a lot to unpack there! I actually love how you’re viewing this in a very counterintuitive way. I’d need to dig in myself to really weigh the whole argument, but I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to comment and think it through.
Thanks for reading. I've often said to people in discussions about the Lost Sheep/coin parable (and it is essentially one parable told with two different types of possessions), that a contemporary version would be if you lost the title to your $125K Tesla Model X Plaid. You search high and low for it for days and when you do finally find it, you rejoice like you've never rejoiced before. Jesus is saying "that's nothing compared to how heaven rejoices at the redemption of even a single soul."
In that contemporary telling, you, like the Pharisee, were responsible for losing the material possession, and like you, they were supremely happy to recover what was lost. Unlike what most people imagine, the sheep/coin/Tesla doesn't represent a lost sinner but rather, simply valuable possessions that were lost (due to reckless negligence no doubt).
Down through the centuries, there have been many false doctrines arise that have just become accepted dogma by the majority. I can think of quite a few:
– The Church replaced/superseded/fulfilled all the covenants originally made to Israel including the land covenant and the Davidic covenant.
– The tribulation period has nothing to do with national Israel or individual Jews - instead, the Church inherits Israel’s role and will be thrust into the Tribulation Period (why, no one is able to articulate).
- Jesus “standing at the door and knocking” is a description of Him wanting to come into an unbeliever's life (instead of the door of a church that won’t let Him in.)
- Jesus never taught of His imminent return for His Bride at the pre-tribulational Harpazo (even though He did so 8 times.)
- The Lost Sheep Parable is about Jesus leaving 99 believers in the wilderness in search of a lost soul (instead of what it’s really about).
- the mischief documented in Genesis 6 is about the “Sethites” (not fallen angels.)
– the God of the OT is an angry and unjust God while the God of the NT is touchy-feely.
- there is no Millennial Kingdom (amillennialism)
- we are already in the Millennial Kingdom (post millennialism).
Help me understand your point. The parables are about the incomparable rejoicing of heaven over finding/restoring a lost sinner, and NOT about God’s active pursuit of the lost?
I get that my rejoicing over getting back the title to my Tesla doesn’t compare to heaven’s rejoicing over a restored soul, (especially since I don’t own a Tesla) but to say that is the only way to read those parables seems a little shallow.
The only way to read the parable is to follow what Jesus was teaching.
It's clearly NOT about "God's active pursuit of the lost".
Look at what is being taught, not what others have misinterpreted:
Jesus says to the assembled Pharisees to put themselves in the role of a shepherd. Right there at the beginning the parable we know the shepherd is NOT Jesus, despite what most imagine.
Then Jesus says the shepherd LOSES one of his sheep. So just to emphasize that the shepherd is NOT Himself, Jesus tells his audience the shepherd is personally responsible for losing a valuable sheep.
To further drive home the point, Jesus says that the shepherd actually leaves the other 99 sheep out in the wilderness unprotected while he goes out to find the sheep he lost. By now the Pharisees must have recognized that Jesus is purposefully slamming them for their materialism and their incompetence.
Finally, just to make sure that his listeners don't make the mistake of thinking that He, Jesus, is the shepherd, he tells the same story but about a housekeeper losing a coin.
Obviously Jesus isn't allegorically a housekeeper and a coin doesn't make sense as an allegorical lost soul.
The story is intended to compare man's rejoicing over something valuable we might lose vs. heaven's rejoicing over a lost soul coming to believe in Jesus and secondarily to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who care more about things than people. This latter point is further illustrated by the subsequent parable of the prodigal son where the father doesn't care about possessions at all. He's concerned about his son(s).
I couldn’t find it if I tried, but I watched a documentary about music in the church. A rough quote was something like “Music has a “Trinity” element to it. Melody, Rhythm, and Harmony. The hymns played more into the melody and harmony which speak to our soul and spirit. The new music in the church is more rhythmic, base emphasizing which speaks more to our bodies (carnality)”
It was made by Spencer Smith but he has a lot of videos on the topic so I wouldn’t be able to find the exact one. That idea stuck out to me, and the remake of that song is a prime example. The older one was more like good ol’ music for the soul.
Sadly, I doubt many CCM songwriters put much thought into these important truths. Regardless of the musical genre, the pressure to write hit songs remains.
I get the criticism, these songs are too emotional. And I agree with many of your theological points. But I would suggest that when you quote scripture “because Adonai loved you” and then describe pictures of love as therapeutic nonsense you missed the intent of many of these praise songs. Contemporary Christian music often conveys feelings that are tied to some biblical truths, but this doesn’t mean that message excludes all others.
Jeff, I really appreciate you taking the time to read and engage. And I can see how that line could land like I’m dismissing emotion—or the sincere intent behind these songs.
I’m not saying emotion is wrong, or that these songs carry zero biblical truth. My point is narrower: “Adonai loved you” is covenant language, not therapy language. In texts like Deuteronomy 7, that love is God’s loyal, electing commitment to Israel inside a real historical story—redemption, obedience, faithfulness.
And you’re right: a lyric can express a truth without excluding all others. The concern is formation: what we repeat becomes the frame. When “love” is mostly sung as personal soothing or identity repair, covenant drifts to the margins—and over time the larger story can start to feel optional.
So if I sound pointed at times, that’s why. I’m not taking swings at sincere worshipers. I’m pushing back on the larger systems and assumptions the modern institutional church has normalized, because it all connects—and the downstream effect is real.
One last thing: when I write my articles, I’m almost always talking about systems, not individuals. And when someone sings out, “I love You,” that’s beautiful—when it’s coming from a right heart.
You hit a hot button here. My former pastor probably still remembers our conversation about "Reckless Love".
There are many songs that are thoughtful, uplifting, and enjoyable to listen to, but are they really worship songs? Let's be honest...what passes as worship music today are songs created for consumption. They're designed to stir passions and emotions. Too many of them romanticize the gospel in ways that shift the focus away from God and indulge the flesh. Don't get me wrong, I listen to a lot of contemporary Christian music, but only 10% qualifies as "worship" music.
I totally understand your point in this article. It doesn't want possible to fully understand our salvation without understanding the roots, the foundation, that it's built on.
What I think you might be missing here is that not all CCM is written to, or from the viewpoint of, people who have this level of understanding.
Songs like the ones you reference are written from the viewpoint of people who don't yet understand the deeper things of their faith. I've done terrible things in my life and as a new believer I really wondered " out of all the people You could reach out to and bring out from that mirey clay, why me?"
So many times I've thought the words of these songs about myself, "You think I'm worthy of Your Grace when I think I'm awful.". "You've saved me from myself so many times, even up to commiting suicide.". Things that I cannot wrap my head around. Things that no man would ever do for me.
It's so huge and amazing and all these songwriters are trying to express that awe and bewilderment of the newly saved coming to terms with what that means.
It isn't covanental, it's messy and sometimes not exact, but it expresses the emotions and rawness of salvation in a way that many can personally understand.
That’s raw, honest perspective. Thank you for sharing it. There is always something that resonates… you showed the other side, that’s what it’s all about. 🙏
I’m not so down on CCM as many, but there’s definitely a point to the criticisms. It’s hard to find a worship song that isn’t big on the personal pronouns these days.
It’s good to have a relationship, yes, but I don’t want to be singing about me all the time.
Mark, I agree with you on the pronouns—good catch. “Amazing Grace” is beautiful about grace and mercy, no question. My only push is that it doesn’t really address covenant relationship, and when covenant gets softened, we lose the weight of it. And honestly, I wonder if the constant “I/me” language has shaped people subconsciously over the years toward an individual-first lens. 🤔
Amen
Have you ever counted the personal pronouns in “Amazing Grace”?
It's definitely natural to extoll the work of God by reference to the most personally meaningful and powerful such work, and to at the same time declare our commitment in response.
But sometimes it seems to transition from being about God primarily to being about me.
It's not a sharp line, of course.
My point is that many hymns do not survive the criticisms we level at contemporary worship. For instance, N. T. Wright argues that a new creation is our destiny, not an eternity in heaven, but most hymns make heaven the goal. The Psalms by the way are also filled personal experiences and personal pronouns.
Yeah, it's a fair push-back and I appreciate it.
Actually, I kind of addressed this in my article about reading John three from Hebrew eyes 👍
Oh, I both agree and disagree with this. I fully agree that the Old Covenant must be remembered, studied, and understood, especially if we want to properly understand the New Covenant. Where I disagree is with what feels like a symptom-focused approach. I believe we should be addressing the bigger picture.
It seems to me that there is an effort to erase the name of Israel from history and from collective memory, and naturally this effort targets the Old Covenant heavily. Even the way many Christians speak as if the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are different, in my opinion, is part of the same issue.
Truth.
I do not understand why I cannot grasp covenant theology with us gentiles.
“The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all people.”
We gentiles are not the fewest of all peoples. We are everyone but the fewest. How does this work according to this verse?
Finally, do we not believe that God pursues us? I truly believe He pursued me, intentionally. I can understand the verses that ask, why me? Because I can’t figure out why He was so gracious and merciful, when I did not do one thing to redeem myself in His eyes as I rejected Him for so long.
Sergio, thank you for your patience with me. I frustrate myself that I cannot grasp covenant theology.
Your getting it, no need for apologies 😊
That verse is not about Gentiles. Deuteronomy is speaking to Israel as a specific people and nation, explaining why God chose them in history. He did not choose them because they were impressive or numerous. He chose them because He set His covenant love on them and kept His oath.
Gentiles are not brought in the same way. We are not elected as a separate nation to replace Israel. We are saved and included through Messiah by grace. That is why Paul uses the grafting picture in Romans 11. Gentiles are brought into Israel’s blessings through faith, not by taking Israel’s name or canceling Israel’s calling.
And yes, God absolutely pursues individuals. Your testimony fits the gospel perfectly. God pursued you, showed mercy, and saved you when you had nothing to offer. That is personal salvation grace. Deuteronomy 7 is national covenant election. They are different categories, but both display the same God who loves first and saves by mercy.
Hope that helps…
Chiming in here… so, instead of thinking of a predetermined elect individual, we have become part of the elect by His grace when we were saved; it’s not the other way around right? We joined. We are not individuals elected, but individuals who became part of the elect, those chosen in Him to do good works etc.
The ‘why me’ question is a mystery right? We have no idea, except that we heard and responded and joined.
You nailed it!!!
I have a question. You said that we are brought into Israel's blessings. Where does scripture say that we are? And what are those blessings?
Scripture says Gentiles are “brought near” in Messiah (Eph. 2:12–13) and “grafted in” to Israel’s olive tree (Rom. 11:17–24). That’s participation in the promises through Israel’s Messiah, not replacing Israel or taking ownership of Israel’s covenants (Rom. 9:4).
So the “blessings” are things like forgiveness, reconciliation to God, the Spirit, and the resurrection hope (Eph. 1:13; Rom. 8:11). In other words: gentiles get brought into the life of the covenant by Messiah … 🙏
I agree that Gentiles are described as being “brought near” in Messiah (Ephesians 2:12-13) and “grafted in” among the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:17-24). I also agree that Gentiles do not replace Israel or take ownership of Israel’s covenants (Rom. 9:4).
What I’m trying to understand is this:
Where does Scripture explicitly say that being “brought near” or “grafted in” places Gentiles under Israel’s national constitution (Torah)?
When you say “Israel’s blessings,” I notice the blessings you list, forgiveness, reconciliation, the Spirit, resurrection, are all universal covenant blessings, not blessings unique to Israel’s Torah covenant.
So where does Scripture define these as Torah blessings rather than blessings of restored relationship to God's universal household through His Son as the Kinsman-Redeemer?
Alyson,
I agree with your categories. The NT never says, “Gentiles are now under Israel’s national constitution” in a modern political sense. What it does say is that in Messiah, Gentiles move from being “strangers to the covenants of promise” to being “fellow citizens” and members of the same household (Eph. 2:12, 19). That’s covenant language, not mere “spiritual proximity.”
Here’s why I call those “Israel’s blessings” without claiming Gentiles seize Israel’s covenants:
• The New Covenant itself is explicitly made with Israel/Judah (Jer. 31:31–34). Gentiles share in it only by union with Israel’s Messiah and incorporation into His people (Rom. 11:17–18; John 4:22). So yes, the blessings are universal in reach — but they arrive through Israel’s covenant storyline, not apart from it.
• The “universal” blessings you listed (forgiveness, Spirit, resurrection) are the exact restoration promises tied to Israel’s return-to-covenant hope: heart renewal / Spirit (Ezek. 36:26–27), return and obedience (Deut. 30:1–6), atonement and healing (Isa. 53), Spirit poured out (Joel 2:28–32). Universal doesn’t mean “de-Israelized.” It means Israel’s hope becomes the nations’ hope.
• As for Torah: Scripture repeatedly frames God’s instruction as the shared way of life for the covenant community, including the “sojourner” who joins himself to YHWH (Ex. 12:49; Num. 15:15–16; Isa. 56:6–7). That’s not replacement; it’s one redeemed household learning one King’s ways.
So I’m not arguing “Gentiles become ethnic Israel” or “Torah keeps you saved.” I’m saying: being grafted in makes you part of the covenant people, and God’s covenant people have a covenant way of life. The blessings are “Israel’s” because they were promised to Israel and come through Israel’s Messiah — and then they overflow to the nations exactly as promised (Gen. 12:3; Rom. 11:12).
I think this is where we differ: “The household of God” is not synonymous with Israel. Scripture presents God’s household as universal from Adam forward, with Israel later formed as a nation within that household and given a specific land-based, priestly vocation. This is why Scripture speaks of Israel, and of the nations, and why Israel is given a national constitution that does not include the nations. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the household of God is Israel itself. It predates Israel.
Ephesians 2 restores Gentiles to belonging and access to God's universal household, not to Israel’s national jurisdiction. Likewise, the blessings you describe, Spirit, forgiveness, resurrection, are not “Israel’s” in origin; they precede Israel and belong to God’s universal covenant purposes. Israel is the nation through which the Seed comes whose roots are traced back through Abraham to Adam (in Luke) showing that the blessing comes through Israel, it is not the source of the blessing itself.
Israel’s Torah governs Israel. The household of God already exists under the Adamic covenant. Priests (Israel) serve God's universal household; the universal household does not become the priesthood. If all are under Torah as priests then Israel's distinction collapses into the nations.
That’s why I see Gentiles sharing in the fruit of Israel’s Messiah because He is also promised in Genesis 3:15 to Adam before Israel existed as the Kinsman-Redeemer without being placed under Israel’s national constitution.
Yeshua plays two roles. They are for two different covenants. One is the heir of David, to rule over Israel. The other is the Kinsman-Redeemer of the entire universal household, who restores all nations to the household of God, not Israel.
I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I believe Israel and the Jews were given the law to show what sin looked like. God knew that man was evil from the beginning, so Jesus was always His plan. Once Jesus came, the one the prophets spoke of from the beginning, to the Jews, He was the new covenant. Some Jews saw it and knew that Jesus was the savior promised from the beginning, some missed it. That covenant is finished. We are in the new covenant. Now, I don’t think God is finished with the Jews. Some will see that Jesus is the one promised, the savior of the world, before it’s too late. That’s why it’s our job as Christians to be serious about our work of sharing the gospel with even the Jewish people. They had their hearts hardened so that the good news would be preached to the gentiles (by Jesus-believing Jews!) I don’t think people who are Jewish in name only are going to be saved automatically, they have to confess Jesus.
Sergio, Thank you so much for your teachings here. I was brought up in the Good News/ liberal Presbytian Church that saw Christianity and Judahism as two difference religions. It did not satisfy my spiritual longing or crack me open to direct Divine energy. I was looking at the Dead Sea scrolls, interpreted by Gnostic academics. Again, no spiritual fit. Now with knowledge I have gained from you, Scott and others here, I have found the ground I have been searching for. I had connected my Christianity to my family, and ancestors to feel grounded in belief. Now with the truth of the Covenent as my grounding, I feel truly rooted in the Yeshua's teachings. It is an entirely different religion.
I feel very blessed to have discovered true Christianity at 70 years old.
Thank you and Bless you.
Wow - you touched my soul Lisa. That’s awesome, so thankful for your heart in this comment! Beautiful.
Not just our church but our society in general is narcissistic. It's all about us. Our felt needs, our past trauma, we deserve xyz. Its not about us. It never was. God created - to the praise of His glory!
Our worship should be praise of the God of Israel who created ALL PEOPLE and loves ALL PEOPLE not just me and mine. It's about what can we say, what can we do that brings glory - TO GOD.
I have been concerned about this for some time…you have made the case much more elegantly and completely than I…thanks…g.
Thank you for reading it George 🙏
Your article reminds me that I heard Chris Bowater say something along these lines:
"To write a good worship song, you need at least one person from each of the following categories:
Musician
Wordsmith
and
Theologian
Don't set your song free until it's been thoroughly checked out, especially by a theologian"
Not an exact quote but it has made me think more carefully about what I sing.
Seeking the approval of so-called men lol yep you’re not wrong!
Not sure what you mean about seeking approval?
Chris Bowater's quote was encouraging budding songwriters to be thorough in their research, crafting and musicianship of a song - seeking advice from those with more knowledge or skill than them, not seeking approval.
Did I misunderstand what you meant? Please clarify.
Totally fair pushback. I came in a little hot.
Here’s what I meant: getting feedback from knowledgeable people is wise. My concern is the framing some of us have absorbed where a “theologian” becomes the gatekeeper of what’s permissible, like their stamp is what sets truth free.
So yes, pursue excellence and counsel. Just keep the order right. Scripture is the measure, the Spirit leads, and teachers can help, but they’re not the court of final appeal.
Thanks for clarifying Sergio. I understand where you're coming from.
That’s very freeing. We have become a generation that leans into expertism and doesn’t allow for our God-given ability to reason. Someone had to have an original thought once right… and then we canonised those thoughts into accepted theology.
Well, people are still capable of thinking for themselves, having ‘original thoughts’ guided by Scripture, the Spirit and what we have learned; figuring stuff out ourselves. Sometimes, having to stick rigidly to theological systems to guide us can be stifling, safe, but stifling. I was once asked why I felt I had to figure stuff out, when it’s all already been done, just read and learn the catechisms… seems lazy to my mind.
The slow shift while no one notices. No one realises.
That's why we need intergenerational, inter denominational, multiethnic, mixed up congregations and a variety of music genres from a variety of centuries.
Also, of course, good teaching like yours Sergio!
Great essay, Sergio. The one that always got me is this: if I was the only one in the world, Christ would have died for me. That, from the only culture that could come up with the concept of a selfie. There are no professional theologians anymore. Anyone else out there who's read John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ."? (1684) wew that's a tough one to get thru. And just try all the happy talk about God's love that's spewed out in mental wards. If this is love...??? wth am I doing here? Look in the mirror and chant: God loves you because you deserve it. Not even the Wesleys would have spoken so irreverently.
I’m gonna get that book, thank you for sharing 🙏
When God called me to salvation, it wasn't too much later that I was exposed to contemporary Christian music. Had no idea it even existed.
The first thing that caught attention is how it seduced the flesh. Much of it was similar to the rock n roll I listened to growing up.
It didn't occur to me until later that the Church had become performative rather than substantive. So much of the music and worship was tied to the grand finale of the altar call.
It wasn't about worship. It was about having an experience. It was about appealing to my feelings. Yes it was and is narcissistic. It was literally like a rock concert.
It wasn't until later that I began seeing worship as a form of obedience. Being in the presence of The Father commands respect, awe and reverence.
I'm thankful for this always well done piece of work by someone who has blessed us with their blessings from The Lord!
Isn’t it crazy how the very principle of performance applies to almost every other area of modern christianity? You nailed it, Scott!. One thing from my world that hit hard was really digging into Ani Ma'amin, the backstory, the depth, and seeing thousands sing it at the wall. It was a huge lightbulb moment for me!
No leader, just a community pleading with song for their messiah to return.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/107189/jewish/Ani-Maamin.htm
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2025152640829596
This is an excellent essay on the infiltration of Replacement/Fulfillment Theology into modern "worship" songs.
Your point about Reckless Love is well taken and unfortunately, many congregations still sing this song. My main problem with it, however, is not just the title, nor the fact that it talks about God's pursuit of us, but that the entire song is false teaching at best and heretical at worst.
There is a deeper problem with the lyric that many miss. What is the song about? By that I mean, what is the alleged scriptural basis for Asbury's assertion about God’s “reckless love”.
Answer: The Parable of the Lost Sheep.
So let’s look at what Jesus was teaching to the assembled audience for the story. That parable is part of a pair - that then contrasts with a third.
The first two, the lost sheep and the lost coin, are aimed squarely at the Pharisees who accused Jesus of cavorting with sinners. In those two stories he places the assembled accusers in the role of shepherd/housewife and goes on to illustrate how they love objects (the lamb and the coin) so much they would do anything to find them. When they did find their lost object, they would rejoice greatly – and they would do so even over a possession. He then contrasts what they would do against what the Heavenly Father does. The father in the final story waits for his lost son and when the son finally does come to his senses, the Father runs to greet him in the driveway.
Notice the difference?
The first two are about the Pharisees love of things. It is about their materialism and how happy they are upon gaining back even a little of their lost property. The parable of the lost sheep is clearly not about Jesus searching for sinners at all. It is about how men rejoice at finding even a small bit of their possessions vs how heaven rejoices upon the repentance of the sinner. Further to this point, Jesus actually places the Pharisees in the role of the “99” as a backhanded way of granting their belief that they are the truly “righteous”. But of course, in the culminating parable, Jesus turns that around on them and places them in the metaphorical role of the angry and ungrateful older brother.
Jesus makes a point that, unlike the Pharisees, the Father cares about PEOPLE not things like livestock or coinage.
Ironically, as it relates to Asbury’s lyric, a major point of the story of the prodigal son is that the father does not “recklessly” go out in pursuit of his son at all! He doesn’t even send a search party of his hired help to go find the prodigal. What’s up with that? Didn’t Jesus just say He would leave the 99 sheep alone and go out with reckless abandon to find just the one?
No. we DID NOT just hear him say that.
He said the PHARISEES would do that. This contrasts to God’s behavior which waits for us to return to Him, at which time He will forgive what we’ve done and welcome us back with open arms just as the father did with his prodigal son.
But you see, Asbury ignores the point of these three parables because that would ruin his lyric.
We know God will never leave or forsake us and yet Asbury is saying that God DOES do that because He is “reckless”.
This is a false teaching and as long as Asbury continues to leave this nonsense on the public forums, I will continue to consider it the heresy that it is.
The comparative rejoicing of Heaven vs our rejoicing in material goods seems quite appropriate. I appreciate that thought.
I am generally very comfortable with challenging an interpretation in a parable, especially as it relates to who the characters represent. But in this case I think the stage is set as the Pharisees criticize Jesus for hanging out with the unclean.
But that was his mission. He came to seek and save the lost. So it does show the extent of God’s love and the lengths to which he chose to go to deliver his people and find his lost treasure. In much the same way as we underestimate Heaven’s rejoicing, we underestimate the full extent of God’s love. The average shepherd would do a cost-benefit analysis of recapturing the one sheep. The Lord of the universe, the truly good shepherd, can protect the 99 while moving, with unimaginable love, toward the one that is lost.
Both our jubilation and our love pale in comparison to His. —precisely as you say of the father—he doesn’t care about the possessions, his concern is for the sons.
There's so many things in the Bible that we can ponder and totally account for His love and grace, for sure. I agree that the parable itself is correcting the audience, however, I also agree that he would do anything, and he did everything to save the one lost sheep. Everybody matters to him. His love is tremendous. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Obviously God can protect his sheep but in this parable the shepherd is stated by Jesus Himself, to be the Pharisees. You miss the entire thrust of the parable if you place Jesus in the role of the shepherd since the shepherd in His story DOES NOT protect the 99 sheep and worse yet, recklessly loses one of them. Note that unlike Matthew 18 where the sheep wanders away of its own volition, this sheep doesn't wander away.
Jesus doesn't lose people and he certainly doesn't forsake us like the shepherd in the parable is said to do.
There’s a lot to unpack there! I actually love how you’re viewing this in a very counterintuitive way. I’d need to dig in myself to really weigh the whole argument, but I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to comment and think it through.
Thank you!
Thanks for reading. I've often said to people in discussions about the Lost Sheep/coin parable (and it is essentially one parable told with two different types of possessions), that a contemporary version would be if you lost the title to your $125K Tesla Model X Plaid. You search high and low for it for days and when you do finally find it, you rejoice like you've never rejoiced before. Jesus is saying "that's nothing compared to how heaven rejoices at the redemption of even a single soul."
In that contemporary telling, you, like the Pharisee, were responsible for losing the material possession, and like you, they were supremely happy to recover what was lost. Unlike what most people imagine, the sheep/coin/Tesla doesn't represent a lost sinner but rather, simply valuable possessions that were lost (due to reckless negligence no doubt).
Isn't it crazy man, when you see a story so vividly clear, and the rest of the world is looking at you like you're crazy?
I posted a quote yesterday, and it speaks exactly what you're saying. https://substack.com/@mrdesoto/note/c-201793915?r=2nnvf1&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Glad we connected!!!
Down through the centuries, there have been many false doctrines arise that have just become accepted dogma by the majority. I can think of quite a few:
– The Church replaced/superseded/fulfilled all the covenants originally made to Israel including the land covenant and the Davidic covenant.
– The tribulation period has nothing to do with national Israel or individual Jews - instead, the Church inherits Israel’s role and will be thrust into the Tribulation Period (why, no one is able to articulate).
- Jesus “standing at the door and knocking” is a description of Him wanting to come into an unbeliever's life (instead of the door of a church that won’t let Him in.)
- Jesus never taught of His imminent return for His Bride at the pre-tribulational Harpazo (even though He did so 8 times.)
- The Lost Sheep Parable is about Jesus leaving 99 believers in the wilderness in search of a lost soul (instead of what it’s really about).
- the mischief documented in Genesis 6 is about the “Sethites” (not fallen angels.)
– the God of the OT is an angry and unjust God while the God of the NT is touchy-feely.
- there is no Millennial Kingdom (amillennialism)
- we are already in the Millennial Kingdom (post millennialism).
✅️✅️✅️ AMEN
Help me understand your point. The parables are about the incomparable rejoicing of heaven over finding/restoring a lost sinner, and NOT about God’s active pursuit of the lost?
I get that my rejoicing over getting back the title to my Tesla doesn’t compare to heaven’s rejoicing over a restored soul, (especially since I don’t own a Tesla) but to say that is the only way to read those parables seems a little shallow.
The only way to read the parable is to follow what Jesus was teaching.
It's clearly NOT about "God's active pursuit of the lost".
Look at what is being taught, not what others have misinterpreted:
Jesus says to the assembled Pharisees to put themselves in the role of a shepherd. Right there at the beginning the parable we know the shepherd is NOT Jesus, despite what most imagine.
Then Jesus says the shepherd LOSES one of his sheep. So just to emphasize that the shepherd is NOT Himself, Jesus tells his audience the shepherd is personally responsible for losing a valuable sheep.
To further drive home the point, Jesus says that the shepherd actually leaves the other 99 sheep out in the wilderness unprotected while he goes out to find the sheep he lost. By now the Pharisees must have recognized that Jesus is purposefully slamming them for their materialism and their incompetence.
Finally, just to make sure that his listeners don't make the mistake of thinking that He, Jesus, is the shepherd, he tells the same story but about a housekeeper losing a coin.
Obviously Jesus isn't allegorically a housekeeper and a coin doesn't make sense as an allegorical lost soul.
The story is intended to compare man's rejoicing over something valuable we might lose vs. heaven's rejoicing over a lost soul coming to believe in Jesus and secondarily to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who care more about things than people. This latter point is further illustrated by the subsequent parable of the prodigal son where the father doesn't care about possessions at all. He's concerned about his son(s).
Thank you for covering the song “Nobody”. The opening line is cringe
Interesting tidbit, the new one was changed from the original. Not only in lyrics, but in context.
https://youtu.be/_wCTQdmXkUg?si=EGNMPE2rIMa9uOcl
I was unaware of this
thoughts?
I couldn’t find it if I tried, but I watched a documentary about music in the church. A rough quote was something like “Music has a “Trinity” element to it. Melody, Rhythm, and Harmony. The hymns played more into the melody and harmony which speak to our soul and spirit. The new music in the church is more rhythmic, base emphasizing which speaks more to our bodies (carnality)”
It was made by Spencer Smith but he has a lot of videos on the topic so I wouldn’t be able to find the exact one. That idea stuck out to me, and the remake of that song is a prime example. The older one was more like good ol’ music for the soul.
I’ll look too!
Seems like there is an agenda behind everything these days. Can’t even relax and just listen to some Jesus songs
Keith Green 😊
Sadly, I doubt many CCM songwriters put much thought into these important truths. Regardless of the musical genre, the pressure to write hit songs remains.
I get the criticism, these songs are too emotional. And I agree with many of your theological points. But I would suggest that when you quote scripture “because Adonai loved you” and then describe pictures of love as therapeutic nonsense you missed the intent of many of these praise songs. Contemporary Christian music often conveys feelings that are tied to some biblical truths, but this doesn’t mean that message excludes all others.
Jeff, I really appreciate you taking the time to read and engage. And I can see how that line could land like I’m dismissing emotion—or the sincere intent behind these songs.
I’m not saying emotion is wrong, or that these songs carry zero biblical truth. My point is narrower: “Adonai loved you” is covenant language, not therapy language. In texts like Deuteronomy 7, that love is God’s loyal, electing commitment to Israel inside a real historical story—redemption, obedience, faithfulness.
And you’re right: a lyric can express a truth without excluding all others. The concern is formation: what we repeat becomes the frame. When “love” is mostly sung as personal soothing or identity repair, covenant drifts to the margins—and over time the larger story can start to feel optional.
So if I sound pointed at times, that’s why. I’m not taking swings at sincere worshipers. I’m pushing back on the larger systems and assumptions the modern institutional church has normalized, because it all connects—and the downstream effect is real.
One last thing: when I write my articles, I’m almost always talking about systems, not individuals. And when someone sings out, “I love You,” that’s beautiful—when it’s coming from a right heart.