By Adam Groza
I have been thinking about the song God of this City by Chris Tomlin. In fact, we sang God of this City to close chapel here at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary today. The song’s popularity is understandable, and in many way, laudable. In fact, the song is on my iPod! The lyrics begin:
You’re the God of this City
You’re the King of these people
You’re the Lord of this nation
You are
The opening verse affirms the existence and sovereignty of God over creation. The second verse is equally well written:
You’re the Light in this darkness
You’re the Hope to the hopeless
You’re the Peace to the restless
You are
The second verse speaks to the hope of the Gospel to those in the city. So far, so good. However, I have problems with the chorus:
For greater things have yet to come
And greater things are still to be done in this City
Greater thing have yet to come
And greater things are still to be done in this City
The chorus reflects absolute assurance (“are still to be done”) in (1) a future for the city that is (2) better than its past. I take the reference to the city to be a reference to whatever city in which the song is being sung. In other words, folks in Dallas are singing about Dallas as “the city.”
But hold on! Do we know that any city has a future? Might not God wipe Dallas off the face of the earth in some act of divine punishment? Aren’t there examples of cities that are no more? Moreover, aren’t some cities on a downward spiral? Aren’t there some cities whose greatest days are in the past?
I think this song assumes too much. God does have promises to his people, but he has no covenant promises to the city of Dallas, or any other earthly city, for that reason. God’s promises are to Christ and those who are in Christ, by faith. Yes cities are blessed when people repent and follow Christ. But can we really say for sure that greater things are yet to come and to be done in any city? Even though there is much to like about the song, I find the chorus presumptive and unbiblical.
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah would have been wrong to sing this song. The promise of immanent judgment hangs over creation. There is hope for those who come to faith, but the cities are going to be destroyed. So maybe the chorus should sing as follows:
For greater things have yet to come
And greater things are still to be done in the City
Greater thing have yet to come
And greater things are still to be done in the City
I changes “this” to “the” and the point is that there is a City whose greatest days are yet to come. It is the City of God, where Christ shall dwell. The City of God is populated by the redeemed, and all the inhabitants will forever sing the praises of the Lamb. The Holy City will come from heaven (Rev 21) and will never be destroyed.
We simply cannot say this about any earthly city.
Perhaps we could sing: Greater things are still to be done *ON* the City and make it a new social media marketing piece for Zondervan.
Dr. Groza,
Interesting that you point out that God does not have a covenant with the city of Dallas, but with those in Christ. I see that the distinction that you make is along the lines of that, which Augustine makes in his City of God. And so changing “this” to “the” would recontextualize the earthly realm of the song to the realm of the kingdom.
But I should point out that the composer of this song as well as the Passion movement in general have used this song to reach the city–that is, to get those in Christ to have a positive impact on the urban setting as the salt and light of the world. It’s true. God never intended to have a covenant with a city in light of what God has already done: He has made a covenant with his people, a covenant fulfilled in Christ. There needs to be no other, since that covenant overflows into a ministry of mercy and compassion as well as hope for the world around us with the gospel message.
So, wouldn’t you say that the point of the song is missions rather than a realized eschaton for Christian believers?
Donald,
Yes, the point of the song is missional. We need to reach the city. But *needing* to reach the city for Christ does not entail any promise for continued existance as a city, much less greater things for the city, which is what the song says: “are yet to come” and “are yet to be done.” We simply cannot say that.
So yes, reach the city. But as much as I love Fort Worth, I cannot say that the city will exist tomorrow, that good things are in store for the city of Fort Worth even if 50% of the people in Fort Worth get saved, or that better things are in store for my city.
There are too many actual promises of God for which we can and should praise God for to be lyrically imprecise or worse, suggest promises which are not actual.
Thanks,
Adam
Honestly. It’s Chris Tomlin. What exactly did you expect?
I really don’t mean to be flippant or something other than gracious, but our musical standards must be much higher than they currently are in the American church. And, I’m not talking about style per se.
How many church leaders really vet the music that’s presented before the people anyway? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been presented with deficient lyrics in a service that are just given to the people like slop to a bunch of hungry hogs. Not too long ago I was in a service at a church where a chorus presented the idea that Jesus was going to be king at least eventually–she tapped my hip, had me bow down within earshot of her little voice and said, “Daddy, isn’t Jesus Christ already our King?”. If a five year old can be that discerning, why can’t we?
The unspoken tragedy here is that there is so much diversity and beauty both in terms of style and substance that is available for churches to use from the last thousand years but why is it we are often satisfied with lyrics like the above?
I’ll wager it has a bit to do with the idolatry and sin present in our hearts. We need to get to the point where we realize we just flat manufacture idolatry as we go and even (or especially) in contexts such as the church’s worship. Being presented with the truth of God’s Word is not always the easiest or most comfortable thing to do. In a day when churches are installing coffee bars in their foyers, singing “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” or “Onward Christian Soldiers” seems a bit out of place.
The lyrics ought to be faithful and true to the Word of God and not to our desires. This is part, in my view, of what Adam is pointing out. But it goes beyond just making sure the music is formally correct.
Many churches treat music in worship today as if *it* is the sacrament. This is how we worship in other words. This is how we personally relate to God. We sing these types of songs therefore we are this type of church. This is completely and totally wrong-headed.
Aside from praising God, the verbal annunciation of musical material in worship in the New Testament is not seen to bring us closer to God emotionally or otherwise. This is an accident to the actual substance of the matter.
The chief reason for music is to encourage and exhort those around us. True, we ‘make melody in our heart to the Lord’ - but that’s because God has access to our entire being. In reality, the only thing your neighbor is privy to is that which comes out of your mouth in song. And, so, we sing aloud standing shoulder to shoulder to encourage one another and exhort each other in terms of the awesome truths of God’s Word. That’s what our music should be reflecting–God’s Word. So, then, the words and style ought to reflect the majestic and wonderful reality that is ours in Spirit and in truth when we worship.
I don’t believe the chorus above does that - not only because it is theologically defective - but it’s also just flat unremarkable. There’s nothing like the vain repetition of the unremarkable in our worship to drive the curious away.
Sing Psalm 46 or “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” instead. Not that it has to be a hymn or a metrical Psalm. Again, not talking about style in and of itself here. Just that we have a long way to go to really implement Christ-honoring music in our circles similar to what the Reformers were able to do.
Kevin,
I think there are some great songs out there: Ancient Words, Grace Alone, etc. Some awsome folks doing worship.
However, you hit something on the head. So many churches hire people to do music who are not properly trained theologically. Consaquently, their choice of song has to do with popularity or just sound rather than theological precision.
The good news, as I say, is that there are some very good worship leaders who are thoughtful *and* competent musicians.
Thanks,
Adam
Regardless of the (literally) unforseeable future of any particular city, is there any city where God isn’t calling us to do great things for his kingdom?
>>>I think there are some great songs out there: Ancient Words, Grace Alone, etc. Some awsome folks doing worship.
Don’t doubt it. But when I say, “we have a long way to go to really implement Christ-honoring music in our circles similar to what the Reformers were able to do” - I’m talking about scale and longevity. When this country is as a whole singing to God in worship again the way entire cities rose up during the Reformation in praise to God and encouraging their neighbor, we can brag about what’s going on musically in the church. I don’t think we’re quite there yet.
Jake,
God is calling us to do great things for his kingdom, but that does not mean either that:
1) Greater things are yet to come in the city, or
2) Great things are yet to be done in the city.
So let’s sing “do great things for the kingdom” or something more lyrical to that point. But, the point of God of the City is simply a different point and entails a promise to the city.
Imagine a believer hears us sing that song, and in the next year, your city goes tragically downhill. Or imagine a city is completely destroyed. Said believer comes to you and says, “man, what a crock! Didn’t you say there were good things coming for the city, and now look at what’s happened!”
If we cannot mean it we should not sing it.
Adam
Adam,
Not that I’m defending the song because I don’t like it. But, perhaps our definition of “good” is a bit screwy. Good is good because God is who He is. Fire and brimstone from heaven for Sodom and Gomorrah was a good thing even if it resulted in the destruction of the city. After all, ‘He is faithful even when we’re faithless’, no?
[...] from this post and comment thread where yours truly is waiting with baited breath to see the discussion turn to the subject of [...]
Guys… why set your sights on a wrong target. Chris Tomlin only covered the song. The guys from the Irish band Bluetree wrote it while in Pattaya, Thailand and seeing the “city” of innocent children in poverty and horrible objectionable circumstances.
They were speaking of a grouping of people, not a municipality.
And they were used by God to do something with the city. They continue to minister there.
So when we sing that song, we too should think that we should consider this song as a reflection of true worship as in James 1:17-27, not words on a screen about our respective towns.
My point isn’t against Tomlin but the song. Yes he covers it, but he covers it like Tiffany covered “I think we’re alone now”, which is to say, he became it’s most popular expression (bad example?).
I am familiar with the story of the song. Actually I think I saw a You Tube video of the guy explaining the song. So if I understand the sentiment of the song, one looks out at all these people in dire circumstances and expresses hope that God will bring justice, that Christ can save, and that the Church can make a difference.
I agree.
However, none of that entails a promise to the city. God’s justice might come against the city, might involve the suffering of his people, and the conditions might never improve for anyone in the city. The story of a city might be bad to worse ending in divine judgement and the complete destruction of the city.
Of course, there is hope for those who turn to Christ. There are better things *for them* but not for the city as a whole.
So the song should sing “great things/better things for saints in the city”.
I could sing that.
Well said… except the Tiffany cover…
Adam, you weren’t attacking Tomlin (but he seems to be an easy mark for others. I, too, am guilty over and over for this).
And destruction will come. And people will continue after judgement, although in a far different realm. And we as believers, as doers, need to make sure great things are done.
Now… since we are examining over-sung songs, I still can’t find evidence that the chorus from “I am a friend of God” is biblically appropriate. And based on your statement “If we cannot mean it we should not sing it,” I would love to know your take, Adam.
“And destruction will come…..things are done.”
Taken as an expression of our intention to attemtp great things in the city, I think the song makes sense. However, I think the song still reflects a triumphal optimism for the city that unfounded.
Off the top of my head, wasn’t someone in the Bible a “friend of God”? So and so is said to be a friend of God? I don’t like the song cause it seems really campy and saccerine. Kind-of white funk meets lots of clapping and too much vocals.
I wonder, Adam, if you’d be able to sing the imprecatory Psalms as the Reformers did.
Amen Adam, I agree 100% with your post. I’ve thought the same thing since the first time I heard the song. I think the song is very cool sounding, and has some good points, but honestly the chorus just ruins it for me. It’s simply not a true promise, and I don’t like to sing things that I don’t think are true (especially when we’re calling it worship).
Nate