Is "Reckless Love" Bad Theology?
Forgive my tardiness to this conversation. Cory Asbury's "Reckless Love" is number one on Billboard's Hot Christian Songs, and has rested in the spot pretty much all year. It's hard to turn on Christian radio for more than an hour without hearing it.
In the song, God's love is described as "reckless," which has resulted in some criticism. It's a fair question: Can God's love be reckless? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is...it depends on the context.
Before arguing my case, I want to stress that it is a good practice to question the theology of the songs we sing in church. If something doesn't sound coherent with the word of God, we need to stop singing and dig into the lyrics and compare it to what scripture says. If the lyrics, no matter how catchy they are, conflict with the bible, then we must no longer use that song to worship our Creator and Savior. In fact, if it's contrary to what God has said about Himself, that song cannot praise Him. So with that in mind, let's examine "Reckless Love."
You know the chorus and I know the chorus, but for reference, here it is:
However, that's not the question. No, God cannot be reckless, but can His love be? Asbury took time in June 2017 to address this very point. On his Facebook page, he wrote:
I began to write this paragraph here to praise Asbury's description of God's love bankrupting heaven. At first glimpse, that seems like a poetic way of Jesus emptying himself on the cross for our salvation. Yet, upon closer inspection, "bankrupted" is a pretty awful portrayal of God's love. Again, using dictionary.com, bankrupt is defined as, "a person who upon his or her own petition or that of his or her creditors is adjudged insolvent by a court and whose property is administered for and divided among his or her creditors under a bankruptcy law." That is, the person who is bankrupt is deemed so by courts and whatever property he has left is divided among those he owes money. This cannot describe God's love.
If heaven is bankrupted when Jesus dies, this would imply that God owed us. Bankrupting heaven for us means that God is in debt to us. He would be liquidating His assets in order to pay us back something we deserve. As if we deserve grace. As if we deserve salvation. As if God owes us Jesus.
No, we are the bankrupt ones. We owe God. We owe Him everything and cannot pay. God's love does not bankrupt heaven, He clears out His heavenly savings to pay our debts. And he does so for His glory.
So here I am attempting to defend this song and I'm digging myself into a bigger hole, since Asbury's theology has become a stumbling block. Setting his own defense of the song aside, let me try on my own.
I don't believe the song is describing God's love as reckless, so much as describing our perception of His love as reckless. If there was someone in our life who consistently spurned us, ignored us, spat in our eye, caused us grief, rejected us, took advantage of us, used our name for personal gain--would we honestly say we would give everything we had to try to pull him in? Even if that person had no desire to be with us? Some parents might say "yes," but I don't think that's true. If your son is strung out on drugs with no desire to change his ways, you don't keep sending him money. You know that money will go straight to buying more drugs. We might even call a parent transferring funds into a drug-addicted child's account as reckless.
This is how we can sing about God's love as reckless: We do not understand why He loves us so much, and for Him to choose us and give Jesus for us, based on our flawed reasoning, seems, well, reckless. We are the drug-addicted child.
Of course, God's love is not actually reckless. It has a purpose. God isn't transferring funds into our account, He's transferring new life into our very being. God, for whatever reason, has determined that our salvation matters and He can receive glory through it. His love absolutely is concerned with its consequences. The consequence is His glory. However, since we cannot fully comprehend the depths of His glory and His motivations, it appears reckless.
And now here I am at the end of a blog post where I intended to mostly defend this song but not actually really caring any more. I do not believe the song is heresy, but after reading Asbury's own statement on it, I'm not sure the song is really worth defending.
I doubt I'll change the station when the song comes on, but I would be lying if I said I would want my church to sing it Sunday morning. It's catchy, there are some great lines in there ("I couldn't earn it, and I don't deserve it" comes to mind), and Asbury is a talented singer. Yet if I am gathering with fellow believers Sunday morning to praise and worship God, perhaps the words I sing should move away from my flawed perceptions of Him and rather focus on the eternal truths and characteristics about Him.
In the song, God's love is described as "reckless," which has resulted in some criticism. It's a fair question: Can God's love be reckless? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is...it depends on the context.
Before arguing my case, I want to stress that it is a good practice to question the theology of the songs we sing in church. If something doesn't sound coherent with the word of God, we need to stop singing and dig into the lyrics and compare it to what scripture says. If the lyrics, no matter how catchy they are, conflict with the bible, then we must no longer use that song to worship our Creator and Savior. In fact, if it's contrary to what God has said about Himself, that song cannot praise Him. So with that in mind, let's examine "Reckless Love."
You know the chorus and I know the chorus, but for reference, here it is:
Now, first and foremost: God cannot be reckless. Dictionary.com defines reckless as, "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless." This cannot describe God. From the creation story through His planned redemption that echoes throughout the Old Testament until "it is finished" on the cross, God is very much concerned about the consequences. Nothing God does can be careless.Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God
Oh, it chases me down, fights 'til I'm found, leaves the ninety-nine
I couldn't earn it, and I don't deserve it, still, You give Yourself away
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah
However, that's not the question. No, God cannot be reckless, but can His love be? Asbury took time in June 2017 to address this very point. On his Facebook page, he wrote:
When I use the phrase, “the reckless love of God”, I’m not saying that God Himself is reckless. I am, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. His love isn’t crafty or slick. It’s not cunning or shrewd. In fact, all things considered, it’s quite childlike, and might I even suggest, sometimes downright ridiculous. His love bankrupted heaven for you. His love doesn’t consider Himself first. His love isn’t selfish or self-serving. He doesn’t wonder what He’ll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.It's a fair point. Asbury never sang that God is reckless, but that His love is. Truth be told, though, Asbury's defense of the use of that word is a little flat. Specifically, when he says God's love "doesn't consider Himself first" and that His love isn't "self-serving" Asbury is wrong. As Matt Chandler famously preached, God is for God. Yes God pursues us, but it is for His glory. God may be our shepherd making us lie down in green pastures, leading us beside still waters, restoring our soul, and leading us down paths of righteousness, but He does so, "for his name's sake." (Psalm 23:3)
I began to write this paragraph here to praise Asbury's description of God's love bankrupting heaven. At first glimpse, that seems like a poetic way of Jesus emptying himself on the cross for our salvation. Yet, upon closer inspection, "bankrupted" is a pretty awful portrayal of God's love. Again, using dictionary.com, bankrupt is defined as, "a person who upon his or her own petition or that of his or her creditors is adjudged insolvent by a court and whose property is administered for and divided among his or her creditors under a bankruptcy law." That is, the person who is bankrupt is deemed so by courts and whatever property he has left is divided among those he owes money. This cannot describe God's love.
If heaven is bankrupted when Jesus dies, this would imply that God owed us. Bankrupting heaven for us means that God is in debt to us. He would be liquidating His assets in order to pay us back something we deserve. As if we deserve grace. As if we deserve salvation. As if God owes us Jesus.
No, we are the bankrupt ones. We owe God. We owe Him everything and cannot pay. God's love does not bankrupt heaven, He clears out His heavenly savings to pay our debts. And he does so for His glory.
So here I am attempting to defend this song and I'm digging myself into a bigger hole, since Asbury's theology has become a stumbling block. Setting his own defense of the song aside, let me try on my own.
I don't believe the song is describing God's love as reckless, so much as describing our perception of His love as reckless. If there was someone in our life who consistently spurned us, ignored us, spat in our eye, caused us grief, rejected us, took advantage of us, used our name for personal gain--would we honestly say we would give everything we had to try to pull him in? Even if that person had no desire to be with us? Some parents might say "yes," but I don't think that's true. If your son is strung out on drugs with no desire to change his ways, you don't keep sending him money. You know that money will go straight to buying more drugs. We might even call a parent transferring funds into a drug-addicted child's account as reckless.
This is how we can sing about God's love as reckless: We do not understand why He loves us so much, and for Him to choose us and give Jesus for us, based on our flawed reasoning, seems, well, reckless. We are the drug-addicted child.
Of course, God's love is not actually reckless. It has a purpose. God isn't transferring funds into our account, He's transferring new life into our very being. God, for whatever reason, has determined that our salvation matters and He can receive glory through it. His love absolutely is concerned with its consequences. The consequence is His glory. However, since we cannot fully comprehend the depths of His glory and His motivations, it appears reckless.
And now here I am at the end of a blog post where I intended to mostly defend this song but not actually really caring any more. I do not believe the song is heresy, but after reading Asbury's own statement on it, I'm not sure the song is really worth defending.
I doubt I'll change the station when the song comes on, but I would be lying if I said I would want my church to sing it Sunday morning. It's catchy, there are some great lines in there ("I couldn't earn it, and I don't deserve it" comes to mind), and Asbury is a talented singer. Yet if I am gathering with fellow believers Sunday morning to praise and worship God, perhaps the words I sing should move away from my flawed perceptions of Him and rather focus on the eternal truths and characteristics about Him.
Comments
Post a Comment