Bad Worship Songs: Living God - by Bede Benjamin-Korporaal, Jessie Early, Kory Miller, and Tyler Roberts (Red Rocks 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, Living God.

Video link.

------------------------

Lyrics quoted below.

Overview

We should say that this is not a bad worship song. It has substantial flaws, but on the whole it is well-written. 

The reader might have noticed that it has become our habit to examine the video as well as the song itself. We have found that the video supplies insight into the song, particularly if the presentation is deceptive or manipulative. So we consider the following:

• Does the video seem to present an honest worship experience?
• Do the musicians look like they are playing what we actually hear in the audio?
• Are there quick camera cuts, out-of-focus shots, or rapid zooms?
• Is there shaky cam or other "trendy" video techniques? 
• Do we see people swaying, patting their hearts, looking enraptured, or bobbing up and down?
• Is there a background video screen showing video static, fanciful scenery, or artist's renditions of outer space or views of otherworldly landscapes?
• Are there strobe lights, lasers, or fake smoke?

There are other factors, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment. 

The reason is we have begun looking at the videos more closely is because there is a dynamic in live worship that Christians notice. The coming together of the saints to lift up praise to the King creates an atmosphere of sorts, a tangible difference in the "feel." Christians are attracted to powerful worship, or what seems to be powerful worship. So it is relevant to determine if the video is a genuine worship presentation or if its contrived or manipulated.

Why would a video not be the actual event? First, because top worship bands doing your favorite songs draw clicks, it's certainly a matter of interest for the producers of the video to make it... um, real?

A second reason a video might be manipulated is the live worship setting often makes it difficult to obtain a quality audio product. This means that the live worship "experience" doesn't always correlate to a good musical performance. 

Frequently, the answer to this is to edit the performance in post-production. The visual spectacle and excitement of the video is edited and combined with an amended audio in a recording studio. This audio amendment might include pitch correction, adding or deleting instruments, deleting mistakes, or even, an entire re-recording of the song. In such a case the musicians (hopefully the same people we saw on stage) will be as careful as possible to duplicate what happens on the video, and the video editor will change camera angles and blur things to manufacture excitement and to make it less obvious that the audio is not the actual live performance.

So this all leads us to the "Living God" video. This video is somewhat restrained. The lighting, though a bit dim, is not distracting. There is a barely moving cloud on the background screen. There are camera cuts, but we are allowed 2-3 seconds to actually see what's going on. There is some shaky cam but it's not extreme or disorienting.

So there are several warning signs, but all of them are dialed back. Maybe the idea was to seem hip and innovative without pushing the boundaries?

How can we tell the video is manipulated? One tell is a video cut at 3:15 where the lead singer is hopping away from the mic but is suddenly standing back at the mic singing. We also see a lot of shots of musicians playing or singing but we don't hear them in the audio. So it seems this is heavily edited, and may even be multiple video takes of the same song.

Let's look a screen shot:

There are at least ten musicians shown (we can't seem to locate the keyboard player). We see drums, four guitars (two electric and two acoustic), a bass player, three background singers, the lead singer, plus at least two of the guitar players have mics. 

After zooming in we noticed another guy on the right, back in the shadows. Do you see him? We can just barely make him out, and he has a mic as well. He seems to be standing at the keyboard. Ah, mystery solved. That makes a total of eleven. That's a pretty big worship team. Will the sound be big as well? Nope.

With so many mics one would expect to hear a variety of voices, some rich vocal harmonies, or even more than one singer taking the lead. But we hear only one background singer (to the left of the lead singer) well back in the mix supplying 2 part harmony in the verse, and also a hint of 2 part harmony in the chorus. 

Regarding the instruments, the keys supply the intro then disappear. We hear no acoustic guitar anywhere in the song, but we do hear snippets of what could be heavily reverbed electric at times. But they are so far back in the mix we can't be sure. As the song progresses it basically becomes a blur of background sound with prominent lead vocal, bass, and drums. 

The Music

This is a well composed song, with a very nice melody and simple, appropriate chords. 

We have stated in other song critiques that we don't like an octave jump in the melody. But here again the song starts out almost too low for the singer, then at the second verse is up an octave and stays there to the end. This jump is designed to add excitement as the song moves toward the climax, but we think it's lazy songwriting, or at least, lazy arranging.

An increase in intensity can be achieved without jumping the octave. And this song didn't need it. The part that's up an octave is still comfortably singable. The verses, the chorus, and the bridge are all in the same general range. The generally pentatonic melody is easily accessible for the congregation. 

The lead singer has a really nice voice, unique, warm, and powerful sounding. She's likely pitch corrected, however, because it sounds unnaturally perfect. The EQ lets her cut through the mix nicely, even though she's an alto. The snare and the kick are also well EQd. Lastly, we hear a nice bass guitar sound as well, so the sound tech has some skills.

But all those vocalists are largely wasted.

Chords -  

Verses:  IV - V - vi (repeats)

Chorus: I - V - IV - I/3rd in bass - IV/3rd in bass - V - vi - IV

Bridge: I - ii - vi - IV

The Lyrics

Because Christian worship is identified by the words, we pay special attention here. We are perhaps too stringent, but we believe there is too much fluff in contemporary Christian music. So we think we are justified to be quick on the trigger. And this song has some problems.

Verse One

I breathe in the presence of the living God

I take in the goodness of Your love

I lean in closer to my Father’s heart

I trust in who You say You are

Keeping in mind the title is (or should be) the topic of the song, the lyrics ought to explain who this living God is and what that means. But this song starts with several statements about what the songwriters do, all beginning with "I." We can't help but notice that there is very little information here. 

• First stanza: Breathing can mean two things. One, the songwriters are actually receiving His presence by breathing, or two, the songwriters are in the presence and engaging in breathing while there. Neither is edifying or even sensible. It's almost a throwaway line. But at least we find the song's title.

• Second stanza: We learn that God's love is good. That makes sense, though not terribly profound and not related to explaining the living God. 

• Third stanza: We find the songwriters leaning in, but we don't know what that involves. 

• Fourth stanza: The songwriters trust what God says about Himself. However, we will never learn what that is. 

There is no narrative here, just what seems like a series of disconnected statements about the songwriters.

The Chorus

You are alive, living and breathing

Here in this place, speaking and healing
Your fullness and glory
Is right here before me
You’re the living God

The living God

We're gaining some information about The living God, but it's pretty superficial.  

• First stanza: A declarative statement that God is alive, adding information that Him being alive means He's living and breathing. "Living" is redundant, since being alive is living. "Breathing" correlates to living, but we don't know why it's important to know that God is breathing. And we might justifiably wonder, is God in heaven actually breathing? And really, why would we directly address God to tell Him this information?

• Second stanza: He's speaking and healing. Good. 

• Third stanza: His glory is present. Good. 

• Fourth stanza: His glory is not only present, it's right in front of the songwriters. Good. 

• Fifth and sixth stanza: The song title is repeated twice more.

We find ourselves longing for more information and more depth. Will it be forthcoming? We hope so.

Verse two:

I hold to the joy that’s found in You alone
I cling to the peace that won’t let go
Oh Jesus, You’re the only one that satisfies
I run to the fountain of Your hope

Focusing on the songwriters' activities, intentions, and motivations, we learn even more about them.

• The songwriters will persist in joy. Good. 

• The songwriters are clinging to His peace. Again, good. 

• Jesus alone satisfies the songwriters. Ok. 

• The songwriters are engaged in running to a fountain. Fine. 

None of this seems to be very substantive. And it all centers around the songwriters' feelings, ambitions, and activities. 

But most importantly, we are now left only with the bridge for content, still awaiting the significance of God being the living God. 

The Bridge:

Death was never gonna hold You
So it’s never gonna hold me
Cause You’re the only thing holding onto me

Ah, finally! We find out the something about why the living God is important: He is stronger than the death that held Him. Now, most Christians know that Jesus died on the cross, and as a result their sins have been washed away; that what what frees us from death's grip is Jesus' victory over death and the grave via His resurrection; and that God's very presence is within us via the Holy Spirit.

Most of this is presumed by the songwriters, managing only a single basic statement out of this sequence. Remember, we've waited for the entire song to find out something about what it means to be the living God. This is such a rich topic, but the songwriters waste their opportunity. 75% of the song doesn't bother with the subject. 

Almost all the lyrics are how certain things affect the songwriters. The songwriters receive benefits, like the goodness of his love, joy from Him, peace that is clung to, and hope like a fountain. And, a specific benefit that because God is living the songwriters are living.

In actual fact, this song is about the songwriters, not the living God.

Conclusion

Though musically the song is notable, the lyrics border on nonsense. We cannot recommend this song.