Bad worship songs: Yes I will (Vertical Worship)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Yes I will.

Audio link.
The lyrics:

(verse) I count on one thing
The same God that never fails
Will not fail me now
You won't fail me now
In the waiting
The same God who's never late
Is working all things out
Is working all things out

(chorus) Yes I will, lift You high in the lowest valley
Yes I will, bless Your name
Oh, yes I will, sing for joy when my heart is heavy
For all my days, oh yes I will

(bridge) And I choose to praise
To glorify, to glorify
The Name of all names
That nothing can stand against

Overview

We seem to remember that when this song was introduced it was marketed to churches in order to increase its exposure. Worship bands were encouraged to send in a video of them performing the song. If our recollection is correct, then it seems this promotion idea worked pretty well since we've heard this song in church and on the radio frequently.

Unlike so many worship songs, this song is not in a key that puts the melody in the stratosphere, except perhaps the bridge which has a sustained high note. But at least the note is a full-throated, all-in moment in the song. That makes it somewhat easier to sing.

The largely pentatonic melody is otherwise singable and interesting, coupled with a nice rhythmic push in the chords, an anthem-like declarative chorus, and a climactic bridge. In addition, it is not a difficult song to perform, accomplishing part of which we think makes for a good worship song: Simple, singable, and interesting.

The Music 

The chordal structure is about as basic as it gets, four chords, repeated throughout (IV - I - V - vi). There are always two chords per bar, albeit there is that rhythmic push, as mentioned.

The production is not terribly cluttered, which gladdens our hearts in these times of almost impenetrable walls of sound so common in worship music. 

Lyrics

The song begins well, with the one and only verse making accurate and edifying statements about God's faithfulness, timeliness, and purpose. In fact, these concepts form the premise of the song, that because God is faithful, timely, and executing His good purpose, the songwriters' response is to declare their desire to worship Him in every circumstance.

Therefore, the lyrics are overwhelmingly self-referential, placing the songwriters front and center. The theme of this song is to express the noble intentions of the songwriters. With the exception of the verse the lyrics tell God the things the songwriters promise to do. We do not think that multiple statements regarding the ambitions of the songwriters amount to an actual worship song, however. Worship songs should be about extolling the glories of God.

There are some problematic lyrics. First, the grammar in the second stanza: "The same God that never fails." "That" is a word which would be used to refer to an inanimate object. The word should be "who." In fact, the songwriters puzzlingly get it correct in the sixth stanza: "The same God who's never late."

A more important problem are the lyrics in the bridge, "The Name of all names." This is a corruption of Phil. 2:9: 

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name...

The two statements, the name of all names versus the actual verse, the name of Jesus is above every name, do not mean the same thing. In fact, "the name of all names" is almost a nonsense statement. It would seem to mean there is a name that is the name we would use for all names. 

The songwriters took a less than satisfactory solution to pare down the Bible verse to fit the number of available melody notes. We think there are a number of alternate ways to more accurately express the biblical concept without muddying the meaning, like

• "The name above all names"
• "The highest name"

In addition to being biblically questionable, for those who know the actual Bible verse it's difficult to sing these words. Thus it drags the congregant out of worship in order to negotiate the perilous waters of getting the words right.

The next somewhat questionable lyric is "that nothing can stand against." This is the conclusion the songwriters derive from the assertion in the previous stanza, that God is "the name of all names." Therefore, nothing can stand against the name of all names. 

This may be continuation of the Philippians allusion, where the next verse reads, 

Ph. 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth...

Or perhaps it is referencing this verse:

 Ro. 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?

Or maybe, 

Is. 54:17 no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you.

Ultimately it probably isn't that important which verse might be the inspiration for the stanza, so much as whether or not the statement is true. But we think that representations made in worship song lyrics ought to reflect what Scripture says without causing uncertainty.

Conclusion

Generally speaking, this is a pleasant and well crafted worship song, with a few notable exceptions. Is it problematic enough to disqualify it? Well, we think songwriters always have an opportunity to make their worship songs biblically and thematically accurate while maintaining the musical interest. Sometimes in the rush to get the song out to the church-going public, perhaps in this case the opportunity for reflection and fine-tuning was forfeited. In our opinion, this song was likely rushed out.

We would be reluctant to recommend it.