01.17.07 The “Jesus” You Never Heard Pt.2
We gave the expert panel about a week to get back to us with their opinions. Every day my inbox dinged with the delivery of another lyrical analysis.
The first to arrive was my pastor’s. He stood by the lyric as it was, writing that whatever controversy had arisen stemmed more from the listener’s personal issues than from the theology of the lyrics.
Charlie Peacock wrote the longest and most thorough line by line exegesis of the song. His take was what theologians would call dispensational: history is divided into sections (dispensations) and God, whose character never changes, will choose to behave differently from one period to the next. His concern, and the concern of one other author, was that Matthew 25 was about the way Christians were to be treated during the very specific period of history called the tribulation - which hasn’t yet arrived - when we will be imprisoned and persecuted and suffer for following Jesus. In that dispensation, he said, people can love Christ by loving the persecuted Church. But he said it more beautifully and with many words I didn’t understand. And he said that if we’re taking the song literally, that if it is Jesus actually doing the things I wrote about in the song, then we should be concerned not only about Jesus turning a trick but also about him waving a foreign flag (third verse) because Jesus was allegiant to no nation. (At the time, that was a radical thought for me that I dismissed as liberal bunk. Odd that now I agree that Jesus would not be a nationalist and I base so much of my teaching on peace and mercy upon that very idea.)
A couple of authors wrote back quickly saying they saw nothing wrong with the song. Heavyweight scholars and theologians didn’t write back at all. John Piper’s research assistant had troubles with the entire song. His concern was that no matter how true the intended message may be, there was a considerable risk of some, even just one, misunderstanding and coming to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus sins or that Jesus is in every person - that we are gods ourselves. In general, the pastors who had concerns about the song took it very literally (Jesus actually panting seeds, actually driving a truck, in his robe and sandals). They didn’t recognize metaphor in the song, and refused to take even the smallest leap and instead appraised everything at face value and worried that others in their care would do the same and draw the wrong conclusions.
We heard from Tony Campolo’s son Bart, leader in the area of inner city renewal. He suspected someone had a problem with the “trick” line. He argued that some Christians assume prostitution is something entered into willingly in most cases, and said it is not. He said, based on his experience, it is often a form of slavery, not just overseas in the third world but here at home. He wrote passionately about how rescuing women and children from prostitution is the work of the Church and this song needed to be heard by it...and he didn’t like the vocal and the production and made some suggestions on that front. I had no idea he was a closet producer and a missionary. Of course, I wasn’t singing about a love only for those who are forced to sin, but a love for all people - all sinners by birth and by choice. But I appreciated his compassion anyway and his ability to recognize my song as a song (demanding a leap or two to be taken by the listener) and not a sermon (able to be fully understood at face value).
We ran out of time. Most of our original panel didn’t respond before the deadline set. We had to make a decision based on the little opinion we’d collected, and make it fast. I’d made a promise and it was time to keep it. But then I had a different idea I thought might please everyone - even me.
Scott said:
Wow, I’m hooked.
euphrony said:
I’ve got my popcorn. Waiting on part 3. Good story.
said:
Last night when you played that song (in Memphis), i was almost to the point of tears. i absolutely loved the song! i actually had no idea about all of the controversy going on about it, but as i was listening to it, i thought to myself “There are probably alot of Christians out there who would have a problem with this song, and that makes me mad!”
i think that the problem with the song shouldn’t really be a problem, and the problem is that it is too real. As Christians in America today, i think that sometimes we are too quick to not want to hear about the problems of others. We like to define Jesus for ourselves, and stick to it. i think too often Jesus get’s labeled “meek and mild”, and not enough “Almighty God, friend of sinners, and lover of the broken.”
i think that maybe when we read the verse today “What you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto Me”, too often we think that when Jesus said the least of these, He was talking about only the homeless people; so give money to the guy on the street corner and consider that your good deed to Jesus for the month. Too often we don’t realize that there are alot more “least of these’s” out there.
Sorry, i know this is too long. Reader’s Digest version right here: i think that God is going to use this song greatly, and the Church is so blinded to the ways of Satan that they are allowing him to use them as a puppet to come against it’s own self, and to come against it’s own God, and to not get this song on the CD.
does that make any sense?
Ryan G said:
Want to hear the rest of this story? Simply send $15 or $5 with 3 proof’s of purchase of any SG product to:
I’m just waiting for that line…
Good stuff. Can’t wait for the ending.
Seth Ward said:
"that Matthew 25 was about the way Christians were to be treated during the very specific period of history called the tribulation - which hasn’t yet arrived - when we will be imprisoned and persecuted and suffer for following Jesus.”
I’m just glad Mother Teresa missed that lesson in exegesis.
Because, don’t you know -everything Jesus said, the whole New Testament AND Old Testament is about the end times? That whole good Samaratian story… End times. That guy on the side of the road… post-trib Christian.
said:
I don’t know how the story ends, and I haven’t heard the song yet, but it seems both sides of this story have valid points. It’s a shame when it seems to be a “safe message vs. effective message”, but the lyric is meant to communicate “if you express love to that person that turns a trick, you express love to Jesus. If you ignore that person, you ignore Jesus.” That message, I imagine, no one had an issue with. I don’t suppose any of the label execs or store owners were thinking, “No, we’re not supposed to love prostitutes!”
But expressing it like that does leave the possibility that someone will hear just the words, not grasp the metaphor (possibly easier if you’re not a churchgoer), and take it entirely the wrong way.
Of course, it’s written with that ambiguity because it adds shock value, which is a very useful technique. It jars us and shakes us out of sermon-listening-mode—Jesus used it all the time (making the good guy of a parable a Samaritan, for example). Tony Campolo is known for using that technique. Often in large gatherings of Christians.
So, if we all agree on the message itself—it’s a message that needs to be conveyed—is the possibility of misinterpretation worth the shock value?
Honestly, I wouldn’t want to make that call, either.
Aims said:
Personal opinion is that the really loud yappy ppl have a problem with the song and everyone else loves it as it is. Only problem is that the yappy loud ones won’t shut up. So what do you do...you throw them a bone.
Mark said:
Wait. I signed up for the two parter, not a series.
(Serious thoughts coming once I get the entire story.)
Stephen @ Rebelling Against Indifference said:
I didn’t know that Charlie Peacock was dispensationalist. I heard that take frequently growing up, that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to today’s Christians.
keith said:
Interesting. I read about this controversy back when “Twilight” came out. The article I read, which I believe was at the old grassrootsmusic.com before it was totally assimilated by the machine, said that the line in question was “Jesus, takes another hit.” I wonder how they got it wrong, or maybe my memory’s just bad.
Shawn said:
This cliffhanger stuff is killing me man! KIL-LING-ME!
Steven said:
What is the great idea Shaun has...Who wins the tug of war...side salad or baked potato?
Stay tuned tomorrow for another thrilling chapter in “Will Jesus (the song) make it on the album.”
Shaun Groves said:
I’m not saying he’s a dispen-anything. I’m just saying he argued their side of things for sure. It may or may not have been his own personal conviction.
A coupe of these experts wrote from more than one perspective - sort of like, “Well this group here one like this because...and that one over there wont’ like this because of this other thing.” I can’t recall if that was Charlie’s approach or not. But I do recall the dispensational point of view being explained in his amazing writing to us.
I wish I still had it actually.
Stephen @ Rebelling Against Indifference said:
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It would be interesting to read his take on dispensationalism’s view of that chapter.
said:
I have my 3 proofs of purchase and my money! Where do I send it?
Beth
Cruz-Control said:
There is a book called “The Least of These My Brothers: Matthew 25:31-46” by Sherman Gray published by the Society of Biblical Literature.
Gray is not a dispensationalist, but he does argue, quite convincingly actually, that ‘the least of these’ refers to the disciples of Christ (then and now), that is: those who are humble, or “like these children”. Within the context of Matt. 25, Jesus is referring to those who will be in the Kingdom as ‘the least of these.’ So, the passage is about the treatment of Jesus’ disciples by the world.
Gray contends that this passage is one of judgment on those who mistreat the people of God, not a passage advocating universal philanthropy by Christians. Along these same lines, you can make such a case for universal philanthropy from other passages in the NT, but contextually in Matthew’s gospel such a case cannot be made with this passage.
Quite an interesting book. I wrote a paper on this passage last semester. Until I studied this passage, I’d never heard this interpretation before. But for me, it makes quite a bit of sense in Matthew’s context.
said:
Don’t you just love theology? It’s nice to know that large portions of scripture are irrelevant to our present dispensation. That giving a cup of water to a thristy child is nothing more than, well, giving a cup of water to a thirsty child. We can love homosexuals and sinners later, it’s far easier to develop a theology which allows for our carnal desires of hatred and division to be expressed today.
I, for my part, like the metaphor. It sounds like many are confusing it with a metonym (two ideas associated within the mind), that Jesus IS LIKE someone you’d ignore on the side of the road and that Jesus IS someone you’d ignore on the side of the road are stating two slightly different things. I haven’t heard the song yet, but I am eagerly anticipating the conclusion to see if Art can finally beat Business and Theology.
Starshine said:
Wow. This is as addicting as Gray’s Anatomy!
One thing I like about your position on this issue is that you refuse to condescend to your audience. You don’t “dumb down” to people. Instead, you assume that we have the intelligence to discern what a metaphor is.
Standing by for episode 3 in this season of The “Jesus” You Never Heard.
said:
Would that make Shaun “McShloggy”?
Bapster said:
Shaun,
More song back-ground stories please. I find your song/s even more thought provoking & enjoyable when I know part of the background. Or as in this case when you make me think. Ouch!
Erin said:
Please tell me this is only a 3 parter! The suspense is driving me crazy. However, it does have me checking your blog quite frequently for updates. Smart, Mr. Groves, very smart.
Page 1 of 1 pages