In the spirit of the recently revisited issue of what is fitting in worship, I offer you a total contrast to Before the throne of God above. I've called this song a number of choice terms in the past, but as I read it through again, I'm overtaken by the utterly depressing pointlessness of it.
I don't have one particular favourite hymn or worship song. There are many songs that glorify God and they don't all come from the same era, or in the same style. But they do glorify God - which does rather seem to me to be a pre-requisite for worship.
This song, however, is an example, I believe, of something that really doesn't qualify as distinctively Christian, let alone approprate for corporate worship.
Wash Over Me
David Ruis
When the tears are falling
And the leaves blow across my mind
When the waves are breaking
And the sun is hard to find
Wash over me, wash over me ‘til I can’t take any more
Come wash over me, wash over me ‘til I can’t take any more
When the deep is calling
And the waterfall’s my home
When I’m all but drowning
And I’m treading on my own
I cry a silent prayer that comes out of me, it’s a mystery
Come wash over me, wash over me ‘til I can’t take any more
I dream that my voice is heard in the secret place
where I bare my face
Come wash over me wash over me ‘til I can’t take any more
Discuss. There's enough meat in this to fuel a mammoth comment count, don't you think?
4/10/2006
I can't take any more...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 joining in the spirit of things:
Is it that you don't like it, or what?
I can't take anymore!
OK, stop washing, already. I can't take it anymore!
This is what passes for Christian these days - pathetic.
I wonder...in heaven will we cry out for God to stop blessing us because we just can't take anymore?
That is utterly awful.
It's the pits. Fluff city. Null and void.
ICK! I'm with the rest of you! So depressing! Sounds like he's about to slit his wrists either way-before and after the washing!
Wasn't that a hit for Morrissey?:0)
A few reasons why waterfalls do not make a good home:
..soggy toast
..electrocution accidents
..everything would have to be laminated
..socks, really can't be wet
..mascara
on a possitive note, we wouldn't need smoke detectors....hmmm
The bad news is it was the title track on an otherwise quite respectable Vineyard (Canada) CD.
The good news is you can still get your copy for 85p from the generous people at Eden.
I know readers will be glad to know they can get chord charts for this song on the enhanced CD. :)
As a signed songwriter in CCM I would encourage all those here to imagine your comments being spoken to this writer directly to his face. Probably would change the tone a bit of most of the posts here. Personally it grieves me when I see this type of things going on in blogs. I think it's important to listen and understand before we jump to quick judgments. None of us have probably sat down and chatted with David to really hear where he is coming from with this song. Maybe I'm off here, but all this just reeks of such mean spiritedness. There is definately a place for critique, but tone and words that are gently placed should be the norm I think.
Quote - "But I do believe I'm posting possibly the worst mishmash of nonsense ever assembled under the guise of 'worship' ever." - What if David actually read this blog? I think you have the right to an opinion on his song, but please don't say it in such a mean way. I think you need to rewrite your post or at least don't claim the name of Christ on your blog. Your post and Christianity don't co-exist very well.
Mr Nielsen,
I appreciate you taking the time to make a comment. I can quite confidently say that I would feel compelled to tell David Ruis that this really doesn't pass muster as a Christian song of worship, if I was to meet him. I make a point of posting only what I am happy to say and defend in real life too.
I make no comment on David Ruis himself, I haven't questioned his faith. But this particular song is dreadful, making no mention of anything Christian, Christ Himself, or even a generic 'God'. I've no doubt that Mr Ruis had something specific in mind when he wrote it, and I've no doubt it may mean something very personal. But it has no place in a communal worship setting.
I think it a little ill-advised of you to visit my blog and post a comment chiding me on my tone, which also includes the suggestion that I shouldn't claim the name of Christ. I am deeply grateful to be able to claim the name of Christ openly. And I think a worship song should do the same.
Thanks for your response. I guess I would find it very sad if you were to say to his face what you wrote on your blog. That is simply my point. Even if you would I would be willing to bet that you would not like to hear those same words given to you in response to something that you have created or written. Imagine that context and read it back to yourself. I could be wrong, and maybe you are more thick skined than most people. It just doesn't seem to reflect a humility that comes from living in light of the Cross. Again I admit that is a subjective judgment on my part. I hope I did not offend you, that is not my point or intention. I have to ask though...Is this the best method for improving what is wrong with CCM and worship these days to post the worst songs you can find on your blog? Seems like that is not the most helpful way to go about it. Why not try and contact David Ruis himself in the spirit of true Matt 18 confrontation and gracefully go from there? I am all about critique and confrontation, I am just very concerned as well about tone and grace if we are going to be claiming the name of Jesus in the conversation and in life. Eph 4:29 and 2 Tim. 2:24,25 I think are great verses to be filters for us in terms of our confrontation and communication. I would probably feel alot better about your post if it was an open letter to David and you let other read in on it. Enough said...
More of my thoughts along these lines can be found here if you are interested:
http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com/2006/01/kanye-and-critisism.html
and here:
http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com/2006/01/boycott-conservative-talk-radio.html
Ok, well, firstly, I haven't gone out of my way to post the worst 'songs', I've posted one, because the topic has come up again. I don't plan on rooting out anymore. A few days ago, I posted a beautiful hymn which is used in churches still, and is a real example of everything good in worship music.
I'm not entirely sure how Matt 18 applies in this case. I don't think David Ruis has sinned against me, he's just written bad lyrics.
My poor long-suffering poetry-writing husband will probably testify that I can be a harsh critic. I shall ask him to look at the post again and tell me if I've been unfair. If any of my other readers think I've gone too far, please let me know.
You haven't offended me Mr Nielsen, but I take suggestions that I lack the evidence of living in the light of the cross very seriously, and I don't want it said of this blog that it should not claim the name of Christ.
Maybe I can say it this way. If you would have said what you said to me concerning one of the songs that I have written I would have been greatly offended and hurt. Just a FYI. "Sticks and Stones can't break my bones" is true, but words not used well can do much more lasting harm than mere physical injury. I'm sure we can all testify to that one. James' words on the use of the tongue speaks to this greatly. I just don't think Christians need to talk to each other in the tone that you wrote in that piece. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that one if need be.
I think it is important to use caution when blogging for a variety of reasons:
1. Blogging (and email) has no tone or non-verbal communication. Some sociologists say that 80% of all communication is non-verbal. What was not intended to be harsh can very easily be read that way when working with a printed form of communication. We need to use great caution and qualification in writing blogs and emails on sensitive topics.
2. Bloggin and e-mail is very cumbersome when it comes to asking questions or interacting in any way, thus the communication can easily digress into a unedited rant that could use the natural editing of human give and take in communication.
3. Generally speaking, most people have an easier time venting in print than they would face- to-face. The face-to-face contact can serve as a great filter for those who would easily spew forth statements in an email that they never would say in person.
4. In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18, Jesus outlines for us a style for confrontation. The first imperative is to “go to that person”. I think what is implied here is face-to-face contact as that was really the only practical means for communication in antiquity. Is Jesus opposed to e-mail and blogging? By no means, but I believe that He has created us to live in vibrant relationships with each other, (see The Great Commandment, the fact that God exists as a vibrant relationship, and that He has created us in him image) e-mail and blogging is a form of communication that has great limitations in accomplishing true community.
5. Face-to-face contact serves to humanize the other person as opposed to demonizing them. E-mail and blogging creates a disconnect between persons. This distance that is created as a result of the disconnect can often times be enough room to have other person become the arch enemy of all the is good and true in the world instead of being someone who may just have a simple disagreement with you or may have unintentionally offended you.
Do I have your permission to post our conversation on my blog? If not, that is cool. Just let me know. I think it might be helpful for others to think about these same issues that we are talking about here.
A few random thoughts:
* Vitamin Z's first comments were also regarding the comments as well as the post. Thanks to Libbie for responding, but I wonder if some the commenters feel the same way about their comments. In particular, I wonder if fatbaptist would be just fine telling Mr Ruis to his face that his suicide would be a service to the world.
* The imagery used in this song is a bit artsy for *my taste*.
* It doesn't seem *to me* that the song would work as corporate worship.
* As a personal song, this seems like the result of a "long dark night of the soul", perhaps wrestling with God over an issue. Very soul-baring. Profitable to have been shared with others, showing that Christians aren't always happy, shiny people, but that God's grace overcomes his trouble (regardless of whether Mr Ruis crowbarred any Christianese into the song).
I took it that this song was sung during corporate worship, and for that reason I deemed it as the pits, and fluff. If it's a song on an LP that's just a song, hey it's still fluff, but I might not say it's null and void, and the pits.
My pastor preached a while back, and declared that the most horrific song, in his opinion, ever written was, Imagine, by John Lennon, and I agreed to a point. It is a terrible song, and I have seen people like Amy Grant sing this song in honor of John Lennon.
I don't know where I'm going with all this; I suppose I'm saying criticism can be a good thing. And feelings will be hurt at times, though I never want to hurt someone's feelings, nor have my own hurt, however we do need to challenge one another, and it may be beneficial for us to have our feelings hurt for the sake of the purity of the gospel and the name of our Lord.
Right. I've adjusted the offending comment, because, as my English teacher used to say, you shouldn't just say you don't like something, you should say why.
I didn't want my 'tone' hijacking the point of the post.
Mr Nielsen, I appreciate the limitations of blogging - this was a post designed to stimulate discussion (hence the exhortation to 'discuss' at the end). Perhaps if Mr Ruis feels sinned against, Matthew 18 might be useful, but I still don't really see how it would be worthwhile approaching him privately myself about a piece of poetry in the public domain.
I wasn't attempting to demonize Mr Ruis, and indeed his name was only in the post to acredit the lyric. If you want to use our brief exchange on your blog, I have no problem with that, but I would also appreciate it if you also engage with the actual topic.
Brendt,
I would imagine tongues were firmly in cheeks in most of the comments. I'm quite sure fatbaptist doesn't really wish harm on Mr Ruis, but I'll leave it to him to defend himself.
I wanted to respond to your last comment. I've no doubt, as I mentioned earlier, that this song arose out of something deeply personal. I also have no problem with songs that illustrate the struggles that Christians face.
This song mentions nothing of Grace, though; nothing of why I should be comforted, or who God is that He would comfort me.
If the point of the song is as you say, it pales into nothingness as worship next to this, as an example.
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blessed assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Thanks for changing your post. Thanks for your invitation to engage with the topic. This is where we agree!! I am a former worship pastor and I too lament the lack of theological content in most our current worship songs. I think this is changing, but was probably at it's worst in the late 90's/early 00. As a worship leader I would not lead this song at my church, nor would I commend it for others to use. I'll spare you all my rants about worship and what the problems are etc, but all that to say, I agree with your content, but not your method or tone.
Here is another danger as I see it that reaches far beyond this issue.
When you site, Before the Throne of God Above, as a great song you sort of (generally speaking) identitfy yourself in a certain "camp" of people. Other things on your blog with mark you as well... (5 pointer, Christian, etc). Thus you represent all those things to people who don't know anything about those things or would consider themselves in a different "camp".
Let's say that someone from Ruis' church or someone from the Vineyard stumbles upon your blog and reads what you said. Needless to say, they will probably not be your biggest fan, but what is worse is that they will then by association probably not be a fan of those things you also represent, even though they may know nothing of them. I would like all people to sing Before the Throne of God Above, but those from the other "camp" may not be able to after having read your blog because they'll be thinking about how you represented that song in your blog.
The classic example of this was when I was in college and the John Piper (I'm sure you've heard of him )revolution hit. I love his books and have close ties his ministry to this day. What happened was that students (myself included) were beating people over the head with his extremely weighty concepts and leaving a path of destruction. Thus there were many people who would have been greatly encouraged by his writings who were then completely turned off by John Piper's name just because he was being represented poorly by people who didn't know how to be gentle, grace -filled and loving. I'm not saying that is how you are, but just what I saw when I was in college.
All that to say, I think unity is at stake in the way in which we talk and interact with each other and over the years I have seen so much damage done through tone, words and lack of charity and clarity in critique that I have a hard time not saying something when I see it going on. I'm glad we can dialogue on this and I think it will bear fruit in the future.
zach
I'm thinking of some sidebar rules in which the word 'dialogue' is banned ;-)
Actually, My best friend is dyed-in-the-wool Vineyard-charismatic David-Ruis-singing lass - and she agreed that the song was, how can I say this nicely, well, not very good.
Musically, it's very nice, actually, but I'm forever being told that music is neutral. (Is that really so, I wonder? Could we set a worship song to the theme from Jaws, perhaps?)
Zach, I'm not one for strident, schreechy debate, as I hope most of my regular readers can vouch. In fact I even have emergent friends who read the blog. Shh, don't say it too loud. And normally I pick my words in fastidiously neurotically English way. But I'm going to employ colourful language at times, because that's just who I am.
If I'm called on something that's out of line, then I'll respond appropriately. But I've got to say that anyone who comes here and writes me off because they think I'm in a certain camp - well, there's not a lot I can do about that, really, in terms of unity...
Let me clarify...not that you are in a certain and someone writes YOU off, but they might write off that whole camp that has lots of great things to offer. That's what I am saying. That's my point about unity and what I am maybe even more concerned about.
I just don't know what is "helpful" , or "beneficial" (Eph. 4:29) about drawing attention to this song in the way you have done so here. The poor horse is dead...I'll stop.
First sentence should read like this..."Let me clarify...not that you are in a certain camp and someone..."
sorry
I don't think the horse is quite dead yet, because you bring up a good point - why would I post something like this?
I think there is a place for saying - this isn't right, and why is that so, and what should we be doing instead?
Does everyone agree that soggy toast is a bad thing????
Libbie, it is a very Christian thing to do to challenge others to a higher standard of creativity. After all, it is not the creation/song itself that is deserving of praise...no matter how good it is.
It is the God that it should be praising. I think you are humble to rewrite with a gentler spirit. I wish I had a dime for every time I've had to do that. I know that you are zealous to protect the glory of God. ...plain and simply put, some songs don't do that. I think its ok to say that. If my creative work came short of God's glory....I believe a little razzing in the public forum would be in order. I've been slapped for lame lyrics before....it stings but I have become a better writer for it. I'm guessing you would push David Ruiz out of the way of a moving bus if it were coming at him.....You just don't like his song!
This song mentions nothing of Grace, though; nothing of why I should be comforted, or who God is that He would comfort me. If the point of the song is as you say, it pales into nothingness as worship next to this, as an example.
(*It Is Well* lyrics)
A great song, indeed. One of my favorite hymns, particularly Wayne Watson's recording of it.
But you seem to imply that in order to qualify as worship, a song must be clear as to its subject matter, even to the unbeliever (as It Is Well is).
As a Christian, Mr Ruis' song resonated with me (even through the artsy-ness) and the description that I gave of my perception and what I "took away" from the song is informed by my faith. Sadly, it is not only the unbeliever that needs the message that Christians have legitimate struggles.
As I said before, I don't see it working as corporate worship. But a carte blanche dismissal of the song as any form of worship, IMHO, goes too far.
Yes, Amy. Soggy toast is definitely a bad thing. :-)
What about having to laminate?
Personal worship is one thing - but this isn't a personal worship song, and there's the rub - it's a corporate worship song.
I suppose the question remains - how is this song worship, exactly? Isn't it all about 'me'? What are we doing when we come together to worship?
Right!
libbie,
That's it.
Too human-centered. We need to look out; to the Cross; away from ourselves. We need to focus upon His splendor; His greatness; His sovereignty; His holiness; and His beauty, as we come to worship and magnify His awesome name, the name of Jesus Christ.
I think I'd rather my toast be soggy than laminated.
Isn't it all about 'me'?
The parts that spoke to me took my mind straight to God. Not sure what that makes me. ;-)
Several of the Psalms are mostly "about me" (usually about the psalmist's problems), but point to the One Who fixes those problems.
Granted, Mr Ruis' song is not as lyrically blatant, but the "me:God ratio" is about the same as some of the Psalms.
I'm not saying that you're doing this, but a word of caution needs to be spoken. The number of occurences of the words "I" or "me" do not speak to a song's un-spirituality any more than the number of occurences of the words "Jesus" or "God" speak to a song's spirituality.
Brendt...
I agree with you about the Psalms, in one respect...that songs of depression were sung by human writers, and placed in Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Also I agree that you don't have to count I's and me's)
The Psalms have this going for them. But generally,we do not sing those psalms in our corporate worship time. "How long wilt thou assail a man, you wicked?" It doesn't flow! And it doesn't really cause us to praise.
And I have this against the song that Libbie posted....it doesn't make sense.
Honestly...what does it mean to "bare your face"? (I know what it means that someone can't bear the sight of my face.)
What are the "leaves that blow across his mind"? If I understood it, and could worship God for it, it would be so much more appealing to me.
This is like one of my poems that should remain in my little book of poetry on my desk.....I felt it, I expressed, and I gave God glory for it.........but no one else really can identify with it intelligently.
I am all for poetic expressions of Grace and Truth....but to be a good song it must bring me from the metaphorical into the reality of God in some way....anyway at all, really..... ya know?
Brendt,
and another thing...
My comment from earlier is moot simply because you cannot plug in a toaster or a laminator in a waterfall dwelling....
The song is based, I presume, on Psalm 42:7 -- "Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls; All Your waves and billows have gone over me." But it utterly misses the meaning of the verse, which is something along the lines of "God, you have beaten the *bleep* out of me!" It's not about living under a gentle trickle of a waterfall where soggy toast counts as calamitous, but under a bone-crushing Niagra. The ocean, in Scripture, is generally a picture of wild danger. If all God's waves and billows have gone over you, you've been in danger of drowning. When you're in the midst of such violent tumult, you don't say, "Keep it coming, Lord," unless you are insane. No! You cry out, "Lord, get me the *bleep* out of here!!!" Of course if you are faithful, you also express, as David did in verse 8, that God's intentions toward you are ultimately all lovingkindness.
But I won't fuss at Mr. Ruis. That's already been done. I'll fuss at his shepherds who have led him into believing that this is sort of stuff has any merit. I'll fuss at his publisher who has the gall to make money off of it. I'll fuss at that whole wide swath of Christendom that lines his publishers pockets because it allows, yea delights to wallow in such sloppy mush. And I'll fuss at myself for my own faithlessness that has lately gone to the other extreme and tended to live as if God is all harshness and no mercy.
For a far superior treatment of the mood of this Psalm (though not the text, per se), I commend "Carrion Comfort."
Also, there's a marvelous sermon on Pss. 42-43 available here (3/26) for the next few weeks.
I think a worship leader should be held to a high accountability for lyrics. A worship leader should also be thick skinned in my opinion. Why be so sensitive about critiquing worship songs? The Church has be sorta wimpy towards worship leaders and the songs that come out. I like how Alastair Begg describes musicians as sort of a different sort of beast. They struggle between leading worship and performering. Most musicians have been trained to perform. Alastair says he believes that when Satan fell, he fell into the choir pit. :)
oops. typo. performing, not performering
Thankyou Valerie, I'm so glad someone brought that up - it seems to me that, given how hard it is for a writer to be as ruthless as neccessary with their own work, it's very important for there to be others to be helpfully honest before a song is published and circulated.
And I am so bemused that this little post has generated my highest comment count so far. That is so wierd.
Wow. People actually sing this in church? really? No, really? (*screaming in pillow*)
I know... my contribution to this post is way too profound. It's like saying, "Ya know, as time goes by... you just get older."
I just came back to this, and re-read my comment. It was meant to be humourous, but I can see that it could be offensive too - so it is deleted.
It was a parody on the words of the song, not a suggestion that the author should top himself.
fb
I would just like to say that I was in David's church when this song was done, and it was done as a personal time of worship in a midst of corporate worship. It was not disruptive, everyone knew who was being sung to and the appeal being made for God's Spirit to wash over us. We had just had an incredible time of teaching and personal application, had got into worship and the worship just flowed. I am sad that you comment out of ignorance of the context of the origin of the song, or of the meaning that it had in that church and to that church. What a shame.
Sadly, Bob, you say nothing that changes my opinion.
If one needs to be privy to the context in which a song was written, or of the meaning it had in that particular moment and to that particular church gathering to understand it, it's not appropriate to write it out as a song suitable for congregational worship in other churches.
I'm afraid I'm not really enamoured of the phrase 'got into worship' (by which you appear to mean the singing), either. It's very nice that you had a positive experience, but really, it's just not a distinctly Christian song of worship, for the reasons already mentioned on the thread.
Post a Comment