Questioning a Question

A False Dichotomy that Isn't 

Persis Lorenti has written Questioning a False Dichotomy at one of her two Blogs, Tried by Fire. She challenges what she believes is a false dichotomy - between orthodoxy (right doctrine) and orthopraxis (right practice). She introduces her concern with this:
I wonder sometimes if being Asian in what for some is still a starkly black-and-white American South protects me to some degree. I also wonder if people will like me less if I begin to write and speak more intentionally about racism and racialization. Perhaps I am "safe" because I have blended in so well by talking and writing about matters that are acceptable for a reformed, Christian woman. Because... 
If you discuss domestic violence, oppression of women, or misogyny, you might be labeled a feminist.
If you raise issues regarding poverty or race, people may begin to wonder if you are sliding down the slippery slope toward religious liberalism.
She tells us she still believes in "the doctrines of grace." However, her concerns have shifted:
But my concerns have changed over the years as I have been burdened about domestic abuse awareness in the church and now issues of race. This has led me to ask questions and question the status quo in some areas. Does this suddenly make a liberal feminist? But why wouldn't a confessionally reformed Christian care about imago dei issues? 
 She states and asks:
I am all for the pursuit of biblical and robust orthodoxy. Then why not an equally robust orthopraxy?
She is concerned that we put too much emphasis on what the Gospel and the Holy Spirit do, while neglecting what we must do, and too much focus on future salvation to the neglect of salvation in the present:
Or do I think that orthodoxy somehow delivers me from the consequences of the fall? Wave the gospel-centered wand and everything will be neat and tidy as the Holy Spirit supernaturally transforms everyone and everything up to my comfort level so I don't need to get my hands dirty. Just like the "miracle motif" in Divided by Race. But perhaps orthodoxy enables me to face the ugliness and evil in the world with hope that is not just for the "sweet by and by" but an impetus to actively engage the present.
She asks and answers her own questions:
Is there a contradiction between affirming male elders and being concerned that harmful ideas about gender may contribute to harmful responses to domestic abuse? Absolutely not. Can I love the doctrine of God and speak up about racial attitudes and divisions? Yes, and amen. Why should I have to chose between orthodoxy and orthopraxy? There is no "either or." I'd rather pray for the Holy Spirit to grant me both.
To borrow from the Apostle Paul, "What shall we then say to these things?" Several things:

First, there is and ought to be a priority of orthodoxy over orthopraxy for the simple reason that there can be no God-pleasing orthopraxy without orthodoxy. In the New Testament the indicative (what is - the facts) goes before the imperative (what should be - the commands). This is evident as well in the Old Testament. "I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" precedes the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." In the New Testament this priority is of the utmost importance to the Apostle Paul. Christ's saving work and its doctrinal interpretation is the foundation of Biblical ethics. When orthopraxy is made equally ultimate with orthodoxy, there is always the danger of the corruption of orthodoxy. Two examples: It may be legalism in which works worm their way into justification by faith. It may be liberalism which is what occurred in the first part of the 20th century and gave us the social gospel in the place of the gospel gospel.

Second, it is simply untrue to suggest that those who are concerned for orthodoxy have not been concerned with orthopraxis. How many expositions of the Ten Commandments have been preached and written by orthodox theologians and preachers? Is Ms. Lorenti not familiar with ethical works of Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans? Has Ms. Lorenti not read John Murray's Principles of Conduct? Or the many books of Christian ethics produced by Protestant orthodox writers? What Ms. Lorenti is really talking about is not a neglect of orthopraxis by the orthodox but the the the fact that orthodoxy has historically not preached against sin in political and sociological terms. 

There is good reason for this. While Jesus and the Apostles lived in times, to put it in understated way, when there were plenty of political and sociological sins that they might have addressed, they did not. Jesus did not condemn Roman oppression or call for reform of the Roman government. Paul and Peter addressed masters and servants, but did not call for the abolishment of slavery. James addressed the sins of respect of persons in the church but not the society that valued some persons over others. Orthodox preachers, theologians, and  ethicists historically have followed the lead of Christ and the Apostles.

Third, it is one thing to preach to Christians, "You must not be racists, and, if are a racist, you must repent." It is quite a another thing to preach, "The church be sensitive to racialization and must confront the issues of white privilege in society," or, "You in this congregation must repent of your many microaggressions." Before Christians commit themselves to preaching such things as gospel imperatives, even if they believe such things could be the concern of Biblical preaching, they ought at least to read the dissenting voices in academia and among African American voices questioning if such things exist, or, if they exist, how they are best addressed.

Those called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament are obligated to preach to Christian husbands, "You must love your wife as you love your own body and as Christ loved the church." And, "You must live with your wife in an understanding way, treating her as the weaker vessel and fellow heir of the grace of life, else your prayers will be hindered." (However, it can be wondered if male ministers may preach, "You must submit to your husband in all things as the church submits to Christ, following the example of your godly mother Sarah, who called Abraham 
'lord.' ")

It is one thing to tell a woman who is physically harmed by her husband that she ought to leave him and to offer her shelter and whatever support she needs. It is another thing to teach that because a woman is married to a man who is boorish or who fails to live up to the command to love his wife as himself that she is in an abusive relationship and the remedy is divorce. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about "defining deviancy down." He was concerned that less and less was considered deviant. It appears to me there are some Christians who are attempting to define abuse up. More and more is considered abuse. This redefining of abuse is not the result of our having discovered that for 2000 years the church has got it wrong. It is rather the adoption by some of a definition that is not warranted by the Bible.  

Fourth, I want to challenge Ms. Lorenti about some of her assumptions and assertions. She is concerned about "oppression of women" and "misogyny." While affirming that only men should serve as elders, she seems to think that "harmful ideas about gender may contribute to harmful responses to domestic abuse." Where does she see oppression of women and misogyny? In Islamic cultures? Sure. In orthodox Christianity? No. Definitely not. Is there some correspondence between believing in male headship and harmful responses to domestic abuse? Has this ever happened? Perhaps. Is this characteristic of orthodox churches? No. 

Is Ms. Lorenti a "feminist"? I don't know. Is she a "liberal feminist"? I think not yet. Is she on a "slippery slope that leads to religious liberalism"? I hope not. But historically others on such a slope have found it so slippery they lost their footing.


If You're Married to a Jerk, Divorce Him!

I Am Blind and Cannot See

(Author's note: If you read far enough, you will see that I believe many people are in unhappy marriages and that some men are jerks. I also have found that life has a way of showing you how messy and complicated people, marriages, and life are. I think that some marriages break down and end in divorce. I do not think that such results should stigmatize the parties or mean that they are not allowed to remarry. What I argue for below is the necessity of the church upholding the Biblical teaching about marriage and divorce, which it ought to provide to courting, engaged, and married couples and for the authority Christ gave to his church in these matters.)

Barbara Roberts who blogs with Jeff Crippen at Cry for Justice recently posted a comment on this Blog site explaining to me why she does not like my Blog's name: 
Hello Bill, I've seen your comments often on SSB and Twitter. And because your screen name is 'just a curmudgeon' I've usually skipped over them rather than read them. 
Allow me to tell you why. As a survivor of domestic abuse I have an automatic aversion to reading things written by a 'curmudgeon' because that means a bad-tempered or surly person. I had more than enough of bad-tempered and surly comments from my abusive husband. 
Maybe you've never thought about how your social media handle affects people like me. So I wanted to bring it to your attention.  
Also, I'm not qualified to comment on the race issue but I'd like to know your perception of the 'gender locomotive' that is going to affect the PCA. Do you think there is a problem of misogyny in the PCA? If so, what things make you think that? And what suggestions do you have for dealing with it? 

I responded to her by posting links to the two places where I have explained my use of "curmudgeon." To her question about the PCA and misogyny I answered:
Do I think there is a problem with misogyny in the PCA? Well, I am sure there must be some misogynists among the PCA's members. But is misogyny a characteristic of the PCA? Does misogyny affect its doctrines, policies, and practice? I think not. Therefore, I have no suggestions for dealing with what believe is non-existent problem. As I wrote I think the real problem is that the "gender apartheid locomotive" could pull the PCA train in the direction of denying some basic and clear Biblical teaching about role relationships of men and women in home and church as taught by the Apostles in such places as Eph.5, 1 Peter 2, and 1 Tim. 2. (Ed. Note, 1 Peter 2 should read 1 Peter 3).
I also told Barbara that I had read some of her work and think she has a "filter" (her personal experience of domestic abuse and her view that she understands things most of us don't get) through which she reads life. She favored me with a reply:
I put to you that you have a filter of your own. And that your filter hasn't taken into account that domestic abuse is a widespread problem in the church — a problem which the church has been dealing with very unBiblically. Many churches in the PCA (and in other conservative denominations) are dealing out injustice to victims of domestic abuse. Often the abuse victim is falsely blamed for the marriage problem/marriage breakdown. Often the victim is stigmatized unfairly. And sometimes the victim is actually excommunicated for divorcing the abuser. And since most victims of domestic abuse are female, this is a problem which in my observation is related to misogynist presuppositions in the church.  
These misogynist presuppositions are underpinned and upheld by false doctrines. ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son) is one false doctrine which has a misogynist effect on the church. Another false doctrine is the notion that woman's desire is to usurp man's authority...
Another contributor to the problem is the way that teachers and leaders in the church have emphasised certain biblical precepts and under-emphasised other biblical precepts. The result has been that the church is largely ignorant about the mentality and tactics of evildoers and how they hide out in the church. 
... I honour all the teaching of Jesus and Paul and Moses regarding marriage and divorce; and my book "Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion" gives a detailed analysis of all their teachings, with many references to other authors and commentators. I conclude that domestic abuse is grounds for divorce, the same as adultery and 'simple desertion by an unbeliever' are grounds for divorce. I maintain that abuse is a form of desertion by an unbeliever. My position on divorce is not all that unusual: I share it with some of the Puritans, and with quite a few Reformed and conservative Christians today. 

I answered:
Here is my filter, Barbara. God created man and woman and joined them in marriage. Sin entered the world and twisted both the individuals and the institution. But the fall did not change the permanence of the relationship. Marriage can be broken in some cases, but those cases are very limited, adultery and desertion. I agree that physical abuse is a ground for divorce, but only because the physical abuser forced the abused victim to flee for physical safety. Divorce is not required in circumstances of adultery or desertion, but it is permitted. Being married to a lousy person is not a ground for divorce. That is why, since my campus ministry days, I have always counseled couples to be careful when they make the choice to marry another person, because "this is permanent. You can't get out of it because you regret the decision." So I counseled them, "Be sure you can love this woman and that she will allow you to lead in marriage." And, "Be sure you have confidence in this man and that you trust him to be the leader of the relationship." I have never told anyone who came to me after marriage, regretting the decision, "Well, since it did not turn out like you hoped, it is ok for you to pursue divorce." So I have told them, "In the providence of God you have made this decision. I am sorry you are unhappy and that marriage had not turned out the way you hoped it would be. I am sorry you married or jerk (or a shrew). But God in his providence has called you to this marriage, and your obedience to God is to make the best of it you can, to do your part regardless of whether the other does his/hers. Lack of reciprocation is not a ground of divorce." This is the teaching of the Bible, and it is the historic teaching of the church. In fact, what I just laid out is rather liberal looking at standards of the whole church over 2000 years of Christian history. I hate to think of the disobedience you have encouraged by your teaching on grounds for divorce. 

Barbara proceeded to school me on what constitutes abuse:
Bill, on your "When Grids Are Blinders" post you asserted that our definition of Domestic Abuse is gnostic. I deny that our definition of domestic abuse is gnostic. I also deny that it a construct of sociology and therapy rather than a construct of theology. (Ed. Note: Here she makes reference to my "When Grids are Blinders, linked above.)

Before we proceed it is necessary for us to know how Cry for Justice and Ms. Roberts define domestic abuse: "Definition of a domestic abuser: a family member or dating partner (current or ex) who has a profound mentality of entitlement to the possession of power and control over the one s/he* chooses to mistreat. This mentality of entitlement defines the very essence of the abuser. The abuser believes he is justified in using evil tactics to obtain and maintain that power and control."

Ms. Roberts in her response went to to school me in things that qualify as domestic abuse.
1. Harsh Attitudes and Words 
Our definition of domestic abuse is entirely consistent with the Bible. The Bible has a lot to say about 'revilers' (VERBAL ABUSERS). It also talks about WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING -- and many husbands who are presenting themselves as christians in the church are in fact wolves in sheep's clothing -- their wives and children know the wolf side of the man because he abuses them behind closed doors, but the rest of the congregation have no idea because the abusive man is so skilled at wearing his Dr Jekyll mask in public. The Bible warns husbands not to be harsh with their wives. It instructs a husband to self-sacrificially love and care for his wife and to "show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered." It tells husbands not to exasperate their children. All those things are cautions to the husband to restrain him from being abusive to his family. Abusive husbands disobey all those instructions. 
The Bible also has a lot to say about the AFFLICTED and how people sometimes suffer even though they have done nothing wrong (Jesus being a case in point, and His disciples being persecuted after He rose from the dead). 
2. Selfish Use of Finances
The Bible also talks about FINANCIAL abuse — robbing people by craft and deception — ruling over them harshly for financial gain. Abusive husbands often do this.
3. Violation of Bodily Sovereignty   
 The Bible talks about SEXUAL abuse (all the laws against sexual immorality) and it commands that the marriage bed be a place where each party has equal authority over the other party's body (1 Cor 7:4). Abusive husbands almost always disobey 1 Cor 7:4 —they demean, mistreat, coerce and assault their wives sexually. The Bible also talks about
4. Lies that Create Social Isolation 
 SOCIAL ABUSE — how abusers spread slander (false accusations) about their targets, so that the target (the victim) is stigmatized and socially isolated.
5. Misuse of the Bible to Dominate 
The Bible talks about  SPIRITUAL ABUSE— how abusers distort and twist the Word of God in order to domineer over and crush their victims. 
Ms. Roberts finds that her definition and examples of abuse are consistent with the Bible and the experiences of victims:
I could go on giving you more points from the Bible that are consistent with our definition of domestic abuse, but this comment is pretty long already.  
 Our definition of domestic abuse is also consistent with the experiences of innumerable victims of domestic abuse. We hear their accounts at A Cry For Justice all the time. I've read thousands if not tens of thousands of accounts from survivors of domestic abuse. Most of the accounts are from females but some are from male victims. I support all genuine victims of domestic abuse regardless of whether they are male or female.
There are several simple questions that beg to be asked: 
1. Would our Lord and his Apostle, St. Paul, recognize and approve the use to which Ms. Roberts and Cry Justice put their words regarding marriage and divorce? Did Jesus and Paul mean what Cry for Justice teaches?
2. Is the counsel of Cry for Justice in harmony with the counsel of St. Peter to wives:
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—  but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening (1 Peter 3:1-6). 
What are we to make of this teaching? Before someone points out that I failed to include verse 7 ("Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered"), verse 7 is clearly directed to Christian husbands about how they should conduct themselves in relation to their wives who are Christians. Note also that the consequence for not complying with verse 7 is hindered prayers not divorce. The direction to wives in verses 1-6 is for wives, including those whose husbands "do not obey the word." Those who do not obey the word could be those unbelieving husbands who do not believe the Gospel or it could be any husband, believing or not, who does not obey the directions of the word, perhaps especially those disobedient to the word about marriage and the husband's duty. Does St. Peter have anything to say to wives who have experienced the kind of mistreatment Ms. Roberts describes?
3. Has the church of history been wrong about the binding nature of the marriage covenant? That is not to say there is unanimity historically in the church's teaching about grounds for divorce, but the church historically has either held that the marriage covenant may not be broken at all or may be broken only in very limited circumstances (adultery or adultery and desertion). It is worth noting that Cry for Justice's understanding of desertion is wide enough to drive a Mack truck of divorce through. It's possible the church has been wrong, but the churches need to be convinced and change their minds (as some have).
 Finally, a word about "Blind Guides." Ms. Robert writes to me:
Our 'Hall of Blind Guides' does indeed name people like John Piper, John Macarthur, Jay Adams, PeaceMakers and Focus on the Family. We call all those folks 'blind guides' because what they teach about marriage & divorce and the advice they give about responding to spousal abuse is not Biblical, so it is unjust and very harmful to victims of abuse. The advice they give enables the abusers to remain relatively unaccountable. And it unjustly blames and stigmatizes the victim of abuse.  
On our 'Hall of Blind Guides' page we explain that "this list represents well known organisations, theologians, pastors, counselors and others who are in our opinion, not safe resources for abuse victim." 
In Matthew 23 our Lord denounces the scribes and Pharisees as "hypocrites" and "blind guides of the blind." Ms. Roberts and Cry for Justice label John Piper, John MacArthur, Jay Adams, Peacemakers, and Focus on the family as blind guides. They are "not safe resources" for those who believe themselves abuse. Is it not the sole authority of the church to declare ministers or para-church ministries blind guides? Or, let me put it this way: When did our Lord grant to Ms. Roberts, Mr. Crippen, and Cry for Justice the authority to determine that these men and ministries are blind guides and so to warn people to avoid them?

Here is what I think your reasoning is:
1. Domestic abuse is a ground for divorce.
2. You and your ministry define domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is much more than an attack on a person's body. There is work abuse, financial abuse, spiritual abuse, social abuse, etc.
3. Therefore any wife who has experienced what you define as a domestic abuse has the right of divorce.
I think you and your ministry are quite wrong. Some women are married to jerks. Some men are married to shrews. Finding oneself in an unhappy, unfulfilling marriage does not justify divorce. A marriage entered is assumed to be binding despite ill treatment and unhappiness. For some their marriages are part of following the life of the cross in following our Lord. Such marriages are trials to be test us, burdens to bear, thorns which we ask to be taken away but to which our Lord replies, "My grace is sufficient for you." The trials of this life can include many things - ill health, poverty, disappointments, broken hearts, unhappy marriages, lousy bosses, powerful temptations, depressive episodes, etc Nobody wants these things. Those who experience then deserve our sympathy, support, encouragement. Some things that husbands or wives do to make for unhappy marriages are offenses that can be in some cases grounds for church discipline. But they are not grounds for divorce. 
Our Lord said plainly, "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." He and the Apostle Paul told us that there are certain limited grounds for marriages to be put asunder. But neither said, "A woman may divorce her husband if he is a jerk." What I think you and your ministry are doing is playing the role of "man putting asunder what God has joined" by giving grounds of divorce that are not Biblical. 
I think also that you are wrong to label MacArthur, Adams, and Piper as "blind guides." When did our Lord give to you and your ministry the authority to judge these men? You are in fact slandering good men who do much good. I disagree with all three in several matters. But they are not blind guides. I do not think it is they, but rather you and your ministry who are distorting the Word of God.
Ms. Roberts final word for me:
Bill, with those views and that mis-chacterization of domestic abuse, you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. 
 And since you've shown yourself not open to being educated on this topic, I'm not going to try to educate you any more. 
For the mercy of no further attempts to educate me, I am thankful.

Christian Songs Can Be Toxic

  • Toxic Songs

The word “toxic” gets a lot of use today. Literally used the word refers to what is poisonous, dangerous, harmful, potentially deadly. There are toxic dumps which are threat to the environment. There are toxic substances that must be handled carefully. There are toxic debts that have a high likelihood of default.

Like all trendy words, it gets used, misused, and over-used. There are toxic people we must avoid. There are  toxic relationships from which we must extricate ourselves. There toxic circumstances we must escape. Poisonous people and circumstances, we are told, are dangerous to our physical and psychological health. This kind of thinking is based on “me” and “taking care of me” and “doing what’s best for me” because “I am my first responsibility” and “I can’t help anyone else if I’m not in a ‘good place’ myself.”

But this got me wondering about spiritual toxicity. I grew up mostly fundamentalist in home, church, and school. I wonder if spiritual toxicity was conveyed through songs I grew up singing. Sometimes these records get loaded onto my mind’s turntable and play over and again. Sometimes I have to resort to singing something secular, like “I ain’t livin’ long like this, am I baby?” to make those old records stop playing.

I might be tormented  by doctrinal errors - “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart” - “Lord, we are able, our spirits are thine” - “In all life thou livest, thou true life divine” - “Father-love is reigning o’er us, brother-love binds man to man.” But those records were broken long ago, and they don’t bother me much. Or, I might point to that epitome of pietistic egotism against which Dr. Robert Rayburn so often railed against, “In the Garden”  - “And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known.” But that song is so hokey it lost hold on me long ago.

The songs I am thinking about are the songs about Christian experience I sang so often. These words were not true of my experience when I sang them, did not become true of my experience later, and could not express my experience now. And, because I think they are experiences not possible in this world, I will say they don't even express aspirations.

These songs I will call “toxic” focus on themes of surrender, peace, and joy. Do these songs express the experiential realities of a Christian life?

Who has experienced perfect submission?
          Perfect submission, perfect delight,
  • Visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
  • Angels, descending, bring from above
  • Echoes of mercy, whispers of love.

  • Perfect submission, all is at rest,
  • I in my Savior am happy and blest,
  • Watching and waiting, looking above,
  • Filled with His goodness, lost in His love.

Who has laid all on the altar?

  • You have longed for sweet peace,
  • And for faith to increase,
  • And have earnestly, fervently prayed;
  • But you cannot have rest,
  • Or be perfectly blest,
  • Until all on the altar is laid.

Is your all on the altar of sacrifice laid?
Your heart does the Spirit control?
You can only be blest,
And have peace and sweet rest,
As you yield Him your body and soul.

Who has so leaned on the everlasting arms as to have this fellowship and joy divine?

What a fellowship, what a joy divine,
  • Leaning on the everlasting arms;
  • What a blessedness, what a peace is mine,
  • Leaning on the everlasting arms.

    • Refrain:
    • Leaning, leaning,
    • Safe and secure from all alarms;
    • Leaning, leaning,
    • Leaning on the everlasting arms.
Who’s salvation has introduced him/her to new life sublime?

Saved by His pow’r divine,
Saved to new life sublime!
Life now is sweet and my joy is complete,
For I’m saved, saved, saved!

Who is happy all the day? (And who thinks Isaac Watt’s good hymn was ruined by the addition of this refrain?)

At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!

Who lives this?

There’s within my heart a melody,
Jesus whispers sweet and low,
Fear not, I am with thee, peace, be still,
In all of life’s ebb and flow.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus--
Sweetest name I know,
Fills my every longing,
Keep me singing as I go.

Feasting on the riches of His grace,
Resting ’neath His sheltering wing,
Always looking on His smiling face,
That is why I shout and sing. (Refrain)

What harmless habit separates a Christian from the Savior? (I can remember the old question, “Would you want Jesus to come while you were...dancing...smoking...playing cards?)

Nothing between my soul and my Savior,
naught of this world's delusive dream;
I have renounced all sinful pleasure;
Jesus is mine, there's nothing between.

Nothing between my soul and my Savior,
so that his blessed face may be seen;
nothing preventing the least of his favor;
keep the way clear! let nothing between.

Nothing between, like worldly pleasure;
habits of life, though harmless they seem,
must not my heart from him ever sever;
he is my all, there's nothing between.

The repetition of P&W songs have nothing on this one:

I can hear my Savior calling,
I can hear my Savior calling,
I can hear my Savior calling,
"Take thy cross and follow, follow Me.

"I'll go with Him thro' the garden,
I'll go with Him through the garden,
I'll go with Him thro' the garden,
I'll go with Him, with Him all the way.

I'll go with Him thro' the judgment,
I'll go with Him thro' the judgment,
I'll go with Him thro' the judgment,
I'll go with Him, with Him all the way.

He will give me grace and glory,
He will give me grace and glory,
He will give me grace and glory,
And go with me, with me all the way.

Where He leads me I will follow,
Where He leads me I will follow,
Where He leads me I will follow,
I’ll go with him, with him all the way.

These are all songs that flow naturally from the preaching and techniques of Second Great Awakening. They reflect the theology of “the higher Christian life.” They are sentimental in the extreme. They promise what they cannot deliver.  

I think of Carl Trueman’s question, “What can miserable Christians sing?” and the answer must be, “Surely not these.” One of the things that Richard Allen Bodey said in the class on worship at Reformed Seminary more than 45 years ago has stuck with me: “What is sung from the hymnal is the man in the pew’s theology.” (Let me update this: What is sung from the screens on the wall is what the the man or woman standing in front of his/her chair believes.) If those songs taught me what Christian experience should be like, then they taught me wrong.

I remember in the first weeks of my ministry, I accompanied some ladies from my church on a visit to the asylum at Chattahoochee, Florida, and thinking what mockery this must have been to the depressed, though the third verse has something for those suffering with paranoia (a song I give thanks I had never before been subjected to):

Sing the clouds away,
Night will turn to day;
If you’ll sing and sing and sing
You’ll sing the clouds away.

Smile the clouds away,
Night will turn to day;
If you’ll smile and smile and smile
You’ll smile the clouds away.

Sing and smile and pray,
Pray and pray and pray;
Night will turn to day,
No matter what they say;

Sing and smile and pray,
That's the only way
If you’ll sing and smile and pray
You’ll drive the gloom away.

These songs were toxic for my expectations of Christian experience. I doubt they are sung much anymore, if for no other reason because the music is so bad and dated that churches which want there to be as seamless a transition as possible from what is heard on the radio to what is heard is church would never use them. But, then I think of the Praise and Worship genre and wonder about them:

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,   
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?