It’s kind of rare that I find something in the “Christian” music market that I can recommend to people, but one exception throughout the years has been Justin McRoberts. I don’t even know if it’s completely accurate to say he’s part of the Christian market, since he releases all of his music independently. But He is a Christian, and he still writes a lot of his songs with a Christian audience in mind.
McRobert’s new album is entitled Deconstruction, and though the word has gotten a lot press recently, I find the lyrics to be quite poignant and challenging. I find that God has gifted certain people to express things I would like to say better than I possibly could.
Deconstruction
© Justin McRoberts 2008 Five Foot Six and a Half Music (ASCAP)I am comfortable with deconstruction
I am comfortable with doubt
It’s the assurance that I’m right about the mystery
The assurance that you’re wrong that I can do withoutSo everything I knew about you
Everything I thought I knew
I’d tear it down and I would leave it all in pieces
If finally what it means is that I’m left with only youThey say it’s not about religion
But then they tell you how to think
They say it’s all about the way you understand it
Then they tell you what it means that you’ve experienced these thingsThey say it’s not about performance
They say it’s all about the heart
But every critic with his pen or his computer
Talks about effectiveness and not about the art
If you’d like to hear the song, it should come up on the embedded player on McRobert’s website. I highly recommend that you check him out if you haven’t before.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
16 Comments(+Add)
Phil,
I’d like to think this song is of some value to someone, somewhere, so will you indulge a question or two about its content from a person who is rather black and white about the way he sees most things? Here’s the line that bugs me:
So everything I knew about you
Everything I thought I knew
I’d tear it down and I would leave it all in pieces
If finally what it means is that I’m left with only you
I understand the musician here is trying to get at something real, right? He wants something authentic, right? He wants something that has not had tradition and ideas and slop piled up on top of it right? My question is this: Is he talking about Jesus here? (If the answer is yes, I’ll ask another question later.)
Second question: Why are people comfortable living in the nebulous of uncertainty? What I would like to know is how can this nebulous of ‘mystery’ be reconciled with Scripture? What is the ‘mystery’ he is talking about in the song? Who is the poet’s intended audience or, should I say, target?
You see, when I read the lyrics to this song, lyrics you evidently appreciate, I see someone who is not overwhelmingly assured of his salvation, but someone who likes pieces instead of fullness. This I just cannot reconcile with what Scripture says about our position in Christ. What delight is there in not knowing? What joy is there in deconstructing everything that Christ has put together at the cross that we had previously torn apart because of sin?
I’m sure all this angsty stuff has meaning and reaches out to someone who is struggling; great! But don’t you agree that Scripture teaches us to sort of, well, grow up and not to be content in such uncertainty? Doesn’t Scripture say that we have had ‘the words of the prophets made more certain’ (2 Peter 1:19)?
“For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: Bearing fruit in every good work, and growing in the knowledge of God…” (Colossians 1:9-10 niv).
I don’t understand why someone would comfortable in doubt or in the deconstruction of whatever. (I’ll wait to see if these lyrics are about Jesus in any way before I ask my next question.) Thanks for your patience. You see, I understand there are people who live this way and think this way. I want to understand why they feel comfortable living in doubt so that I can minister to them in their doubt. However, I think it is the goal of Scripture, at least in part, to remove doubt not create it, and part of our work to help people out of it not to find a home in it.
This is not to say that I never doubt or have fears. It is to say that I find nothing comfortable about them, and when they occur, I do all in my power to learn and grow so that I will experience them no more. I’d like to know how to help people out of doubt and into a certain hope of salvation and hope.
Thanks for your time.
your friend as always,
jerry
Jerry,
Thanks for your comment.
I totally understand where your coming from and why it seems like it could be glorifying doubt. Ironically, the line that I find I relate to most is part of the one that bothers you. When Justin says, “If finally what it means is that I’m left with only you”, I can relate.
Our faith is actually placed on Jesus, not on Scripture. I’m not saying we disregard Scripture, but we need to get first things first. I believe Scripture is true, infallible, trustworthy, etc. because Jesus did and said so. Not the other way around. Scripture’s primary purpose is to point to Christ, so when we keep that in mind, it helps us to keep a proper perspective.
I actually think a lot Christians end up in some sort of Biblio-dolatry because they get it backwards. If Scripture is placed before Christ, it allows us to make secondary issues into primary ones. If Christ is first, it allows to keep him in focus, and the other issues naturally stay secondary.
I don’t want to necessarily put words in Justin’s mouth, so please understand this just my opinion. What was going through his mind when he wrote the lyrics, I can’t say for sure.
I’m not Phil, but I can hazard some guesses here, as a musician/poet as well…
There is a whole lot of baggage people (both inside and outside the church) have added over the years to who Jesus is and what he and his bride are supposed to look like. Much of this is bound up in theological systems and codified in extra-Biblical traditions to the point where a lot of Christians don’t know what is fully true and what is just a ‘guess’ (perhaps an educated one, but not always).
Part of this is due to the average Christian’s lack of depth in the Scripture, part of it is external distortion of what the church and/or Jesus “should” look like in the eyes of the world, and part of it is internal distortion (caused by intentional and unintentional drift over time).
Where I see deconstruction as good is that it takes everything we “know” about a subject (for instance, Creation of the World, as Mark Driscoll addressed it last Sunday, ), and breaks those things we “know” into their respective pieces. In the case of creation, deconstruction:
Then, having deconstructed what is scriptural, what is tradition (based on that scripture), and what the world says, Driscoll reconstructed Creation and its importance to us, with both the “Closed Hand” doctrine (”In the beginning, God created…” – the importance being that God existed before the beginning, and that God created) and the “Open Hand” doctrine (Yes, God created, but He could have done it through New Earth Creationism, Historical Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, etc.) – with the “Closed Hand” being essential to Christian understanding and the “Open Hand” allowing for difference in belief/opinion while still being an earnest follower of Christ.
You asked:
I think part of your assumption is a little bit black-and-white here. I would suggest that that people, like this author, are comfortable living in uncertainty in areas where Scripture is uncertain (even if later theologians claim “certainty”), but are also comfortable with certainty, where the scriptures ARE certain.
Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection are certain.
On the other hand, exactly what Jesus’ death accomplished – in terms of its mechanism and its full implications – is likely explained incompletely in Substitutionary Penal Atonement (which is, indeed, one partial explanation), but perhaps better explained by considering Cristus Victor (Ransom Theory) and Anselm’s Theory, all in some combination, as well.
Part of the ’sin’ of modernism is its tendency to create certitude, where none exists. Part of the ’sin’ of postmodernism is its tendency to create a lack of certitude, where certitude exists. The key, Jerry, I believe, is finding that ‘right’ place where those things which are certain are allowed to be certain, AND things that are not fully certain are allowed to be uncertain.
Your (and my) church tradition is one that is approaching 200-years in age, and one of its primary differentiators is its desire to strip away creeds and systems and traditions and to recognize them for what they are, and to recognize Scripture for what it is, without the added baggage. In some ways, the Restoration Movement was 200 years ahead of its time. As such, we do not always relate well to those who come out of systematic & creednal theologies, or understand their relief to be free of the “system” while clinging to what is true…
OK, it is what it is and most like me have no idea of the theological nuances you just presented when we get saved. So even though I go with what you already know, here is my question as it concerns certainty.
Can we be certain as to what a sinner must hear and believe before he can become born again?
ie.
*Before a person can be born again while alive on this earth, must he hear the gospel?
*Can a person who never hears the gospel die and then become born again?
*Is faith alone required for salvation?
I agree the nebulous creation account renders the debate as unproductive, and the different views of the atonement mean nothing to sinners. But what about the questions I asked, can we be certain about those?
BTW Phil – Am I the only one who sees the angel resting on Justin’s head? Those type of songs can be used of God to minister to some people although not people like me. As a musician I give some creative license for the Spirit to reach people through songs that I would consider nebulous.
Angel?
Here I have agreement on this point: A lot of the debates that we debate are meaningless. For example, I read a lot of theological journals. Among them, The Stone-Campbell journal. The latest episode has an essay titled, “Who wrote the Lunenburg Letter,” and another, “Did Alexander Campbell predict 1866 as the Year of Christ’s Coming?” Well, I have to be honest, who cares? The answers to neither of these questions has anything to do with our salvation. It’s more like a game of Clue; mostly it’s a waste of paper and ink and time.
Chris, I get what you are saying about, for example, creation. But to me, Scripture speaks clearly enough on this issue and from my point of view, there are far too many things at stake on this issue. To be sure, I stated at the outset of my post that I view many things as black and white. I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t think that makes me wrong for doing so. It could be that the things that I find black and white are still struggles for some people and that eventually they will come to a fuller understanding. Who knows?
What I want to know is how to minister to those people now. Paul said that God desires all to be saved and to ‘come to a knowledge of the truth.’ OK. Define truth. How much truth are we expected to come to a knowledge of? How little can we get away with? Who defines what it is?
I also agree that the Restoration Church was a bit ahead of its time. It is too bad we have had to play so much catch-up. And now that we are finally being accepted in the evangelical world, we are taking serious steps backwards in areas of scholarship with essays like the two I mentioned above.
Now my final point to Phil: I agree with this qualification: Where else will we learn about Jesus if not from Scripture? I don’t call it biblolatry; I call it ‘what else do we have to go by?’ Yes, Hebrews says that God spoke in these last days through His Son Jesus. OK. But as I sit here in my study, I’m not hearing his voice unless I open the Scripture. I agree: Strip away the tradition! Strip away the creeds! Yet, ‘how can they call upon the Name of the Lord unless someone preaches?’ Do you see what I mean here?
We cannot just ’strip away’ the Scripture and be left with some vague imaginary Jesus. The only Jesus we have is not the one that ‘If finally what it means is that I’m left with only you.’ We have only one Jesus and that is the one in the Bible. And regardless of how much people still manage to muck it up, where else are we going to go? We have no right to create our ‘own personal Jesus.’ I don’t think this is a matter of ‘putting scripture before Christ.’ We are not worshiping a book, but we are worshiping the Word. (Yes, yes, these ideas have all sorts of funny conotations, but leave that aside for the merest of moments and interract with me on this simplest level.)
You see, I am a fan of taking Scripture at face value. So if it says, ‘God made the world in 6 days,’ or ‘by faith we believe that God made what is seen out of what is not seen’ of ‘all things were made by him and for him,’ then I don’t see how that is something to be ‘uncertain of.’ In fact, God as Creator is mentioned in just about every book of the Bible at some point (at least in every genre). But that’s only one example. If I hear you, Chris, you are saying that belief in a literal 6 day creation, for example, is not necessary for saving faith. But what I’m saying is that if Genesis is not telling us the truth (and, to be sure, Moses could have started Genesis anywhere he wanted) then how can I trust that the rest of the Bible is telling the truth?
That’s just an example and not the dominant point. What I want to understand is how to minister to people who have doubts like the ones the poet expounds upon. OK. I have to go home for dinner so I won’t be back for a while. Hopefully I won’t miss much while I’m gone. (PS–Rick, I don’t think the creation account is nebulous. What’s wrong with face value? Please don’t bring up ridiculous arguments about Christians believing in flat earths either as that is clearly off the issue. Until Darwin, most people, especially Christians and Jews and Muslims, believed in Creation by God as described by Moses; many of us still do.)
Thanks.
your friend as always in Christ,
jerry
jerry
I agree with Chris L on the uncertainty topic. There are some “things” in my faith I am uncertain about and other “things” at this point I am certain about…
I am certain in the trustworthy of Jesus,
I am uncertain as to whether what some teach as “Sovereignty” if biblical. As I look over the tragedy that has happen here in Billings, 25 people homeless from a fire, one person dead in the fire and when a local hotel with a water slide tried to do something nice for the kids, one of the kids drowned to death… In that sometimes it is hard to have certainty that God is really in control of all those things. I am uncertain in how to tell my friends that God is in control as I did the funeral for their child who died one day before his first birthday…
I am uncertain in the cruelty and hatred some Christians show each other in the Name of Jesus….
I am uncertain that I have every single doctrinal stance perfect…
I am uncertain that the bible is inerrant, yet I am certain of its authority because I trust Jesus.
I am uncertain that pre-trib mid-trib or post-trib rapture or that if there will be a rapture but I am certain in the resurrection.
I am uncertain I will not have a heart attack tonight or get hit by a mac truck and die or that I will live another day.
I could go on… but at this point I will be warding off some who just read my words here as point of attack instead of trying to understand. But I live with uncertainty and I am content in Christ in that uncertainty.
iggy
Jerry –
1) I’ve never been a real fan of the SCJ, and you’ve identified a good part of the “why”…
2) On Creation, Driscoll also covers “Historical Creation”, which accepts the six literal days, but places them at an unspecified time after v.1 (God created the heavens and the earth). Old earth, six-days.
Not to go too deeply, but the clarity on Creation is WHO did the creating, and that He existed before it – the Bible isn’t a science textbook, and when you go to the original language and literary form, the clarity is even less. So it comes back to – what is actually recorded in scripture, how can it be interpreted in a hermeneutically acceptable way, and must certainty exist where it may not be there?
“I am uncertain that the bible is inerrant, yet I am certain of its authority”
It is useless to be certain about it’s authority if you can’t be certain about it’s accuracy. If it does have errors, then those errors can’t have authority because they’re errors. If you don’t know which part is error, then you don’t know which part is authoritative. So believing in it’s authority without being able to determine which parts are and are not authoritative is… simply put, useless.
inq,
Then you believe bats are birds?
Is the bat a “bird” or a “fowl” or is the bible wrong?
I can give more examples if you like…
If the bible is wrong about a bat being a bird then is it inerrant as most define inerrancy?
Again that would be your issue to deal with as it is not mine.
iggy
I might also add that we then need to figure out which translation is without error… and man you do not want to go there! = )
Matt 13:31-32: ” “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.”
1. there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and
2. mustard plants don’t grow into trees.
Lev 11:6: “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud…”
Hare do not chew the cud. But they do eat their feces which is gross but to them nutritious. = )
iggy
Jerry,
What I was getting at is this. It seems we have to take a step of faith at some point. I have asked Christians why they believe the Bible is true, trustworthy, etc. and most of them say “because it says it is”. Now I’m not trying to be a jerk, but that isn’t what convinces someone with doubts. If someone doubts the reliability of Scripture, pointing to a verse that says we can trust Scripture isn’t going to convince them. I know, because I had this conversation again and again when I was in college and later on.
This is why I say it all has to come back to Christ. Christ is alive, and people have to experience Him for themselves. Only then will the Holy Spirit begin to really open their eyes to Scripture. Now I do believe that if someone who has doubts reads Scripture that the Holy Spirit can lead them to Christ, and I have actually seen this happen a lot of times. I don’t think it’s a pure mental revelation though, it’s a God thing.
I think what a lot of us are wanting is some sort of rock-solid evidence for our faith, some sort of indesputable proof that we can point to outside ourselves. It’s the red herring of the Enlightenment to try to arrive at this apart from Christ. I think in actuality a lot of trying to approach faith from this angle has actually just put up a lot of interference around things, and in a way, made it harder for people to experience Christ on their own.
So I can already anticipate that someone will say that I’m advocating some sort of relativism, but in reality we all are bound by our experience of reality. We can only perceive what we experience through our senses, and in our spirits. So, I guess we have to get to the point where we realize that Christ is our only hope, our only bearing point. When we realize that, we will see that Scripture testifies to this, so that’s why we can trust the Bible.
“I don’t think it’s a pure mental revelation though, it’s a God thing.”
Phil – You are right. I believe apologetics is very limited in its scope and even proof discussions can only water. Two things empowered by one – The Scriptures and how we live them are the two things. The one that empowers them both to the unbeliever?
The ministry of the Spirit. We can get so apologetic, we can get so preachy, we can get so aloof, and we can get so theological, that we either discount or hinder the unseen ministry of God’s Spirit without which no man can come to Christ.
Sinners can come to Christ without apologetics, or without a sermon, or without an organized evangelism, but no one can come without the Spirit. Wesley’s life was changed by the humility and servanthood he saw in the Moravians, not their systematic theology or Biblical knowledge because, in fact, he did not even speak their language.
Is that the enlightened 7th Budda on his head?
Friends,
I think I understand what you are saying, although not because I understand everything you happen to be saying. I just finished reading The Shack–a book that all should read–and that author makes this statement: “Faith does not grow in the house of certainty.” (189) I think now I understand what you are getting at. Thanks for sharing the conversation.
jerry
Friends,
I wish this ‘Dan Goldfinch’ fella would stop using my name! Although, to be sure, I agree with him whole heartedly! Thanks Dan, you are the best!
jerry
ps–Oh, I just noticed he is also using my other name. What a chump!