Bad Stuff to Good Stuff: Theological Song Review of Graves Into Gardens - David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have reviewed Mr. Morrill's writings several times, and sadly, we have found his presentations wanting. Today's song review is no exception.

Since he cannot do the courtesy of actually quoting the song lyrics, we shall do so:

1) I searched the world, But it couldn't fill me
Man's empty praise And treasures that fade
Are never enough

Then You came along And put me back together
And every desire Is now satisfied
Here in Your love 

Chorus 

Oh, there's nothing better than You
There's nothing better than You
Lord, there's nothing
Nothing is better than You

2) I'm not afraid To show You my weakness
My failures and flaws Lord, You've seen 'em all
And You still call me friend

'Cause the God of the mountain Is the God of the valley
There's not a place Your mercy and grace
Won't find me again

Bridge

You turn mourning to dancing
You give beauty for ashes
You turn shame into glory
You're the only one who can

You turn graves into garden
You turn bones into armies
You turn seas into highways
You're the only one who can
You're the only one who can

Contrast the way Mr. Morrill will characterize the lyrics with the lyrics themselves. The lyrics are not heretical, controversial, or offensive, yet Mr. Morrill blasts away at them.

We suspect that Mr. Morrill cannot get past his bias, a bias common to those we've deemed the Doctrinal Police. That bias is, there must be complete and total doctrinal conformity. Therefore, a group, church, or person cannot produce anything of virtue or spiritual value if their doctrine doesn't perfectly line up. It isn't possible for them to teach, preach, or write a worship song that honors God. They're likely heretics and probably not saved. 

This is cultic thinking.

(...)

Note: For a full explanation of the rubric and a primer on our scoring methodology, click here.

Doctrinal Fidelity and Clarity: The prosperity gospel that the song promotes was admitted by Chris Brown of Elevation Worship in an interview in 2020. Brown said that the song was sourced from a Steven Furtick sermon entitled “The Mystery of Potential,” in which (according to Brown) Furtick taught that the miracle in 2 Kings 13 showed that, “Elisha still had a resurrection miracle left in his bones.” Brown said, “God is still in the business of bringing dead things back to life. If we’ll trust God even with the seemingly dead areas of our lives, if we’ll believe in the power of God, if we’ll declare resurrection power over everything we sow, nothing will be wasted.

Brown does not mention the resurrection miracle of salvation, instead he indicates that in the same way resurrection was in Elisha, believers can “declare resurrection power” so that God will apparently not allow the “dead areas of our lives” to be wasted. Yet the miracle of the resurrection of the dead man who touched Elisha’s bones was done to indicate that God’s visible and miraculous power was uniquely attached to his chosen prophet Elisha (a type of Christ), not an indication that we have some sort of “resurrection power” we can apply to whatever area of our life we are dissatisfied with. The account of this miracle in 2 Kings 13 is no more evidence of the general “name it and claim it” taught by Steven Furtick than the resurrection of Christ Himself. Any connection between the song lyrics and the Bible that is beyond mere platitude is unfortunately a clear twisting of the applied passages. (Rather than explain the song's doctrinal deficiencies, if any, Mr. Morrill instead refutes what he thinks someone implies in what they said about the song.)

5/25.

Doctrinal Specificity: The song is a masterclass in fill-in-the-blank worship. The chorus is more repetitive and non-specific than any song in rotation at K-Love, preferring to replace any one of dozens of specific adjectives the Bible uses to describe God (holy, righteous, perfect, etc.) with the sophomoric “better.” (Apparently, using the word "better" is not good enough. Even though the songwriter clearly communicates that there is nothing better than God, this offends Mr. Morrill. 

This is petty.

Again and again we have found Mr. Morrill makes these critical claims about worship songs while oblivious to the reality that many, if not most, hymns share the same features.

Then sings my soul, my savior God to thee

How great Thou Art, how great Thou art

Then sings my soul, my savior God to thee

How great Thou Art, how great Thou art

How is this chorus any different in character to Graves Into Gardens? "Nothing is better" is pretty much synonymous with "how great Thou art." Both convey approximately the same amount of information. Both are basic statements of the high position of God.)

The final chorus section might as well be out of a book of Mad Libs, where a worshipper could replace “you turn graves into gardens” with any other generally positive and negative nouns. “You turn bad stuff to good stuff” would function just as well. (Well, if it communicates truth, what's the problem? Let's requote the statements from the song, with Bible references:

 

You turn mourning to dancing [Ps. 30:11 You turned my wailing into dancing...] 

 

You give beauty for ashes [Is. 61:3 ...to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes...]

 

You turn shame into glory [Zep. 3:19 ... I will change their shame into praise and renown...]

You turn graves into gardens [Is. 32:15 ..till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the desert becomes a fertile field, and the fertile field seems like a forest.]

 

You turn bones into armies [Ez. 37:10 ...they came to life and stood up on their feet — a vast army.]

 

You turn seas into highways [Mr. Morrill himself documents this in his next sentence. We would add the possibility of Peter walking on water as well.]

Frankly, the blinders through which Mr. Morrill views his critiques disqualify him as an objective reviewer.)

Almost as if to mock CCM’s use of this formula, the song uses “graves into gardens” (nonsensical since plants easily grow on top of buried bodies) (Nonsensical objection. The imagery of this is quite apparent - death into fruitful life.)

and “seas into highways” (while likely a reference to crossing the red sea, both places of speedy travel). 5/20.

Focus: The focus of the song is predictably about the worshipper, not God, and the lyrics are full of self-referential phrases (“I searched,” My failures and flaws,” “put me back together”) (Apparently Mr. Morrill is unfamiliar with the ideas of testimony and gratefulness:

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me

I once was lost, but now I am found

Was blind, but now I see.

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Morning by morning new mercies I see;

all I have needed thy hand hath provided.

Great is thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me.

 

This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long.
This is my story, this is my song, 

praising my Savior all the day long.

Were the whole Realm of Nature mine,
That were a Present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my Soul, my Life, my All.

This is what we mean by blinders.)

and generic, fill-in-the-meaning phrases (“every desire is now satisfied here in your love,” (Ps. 90:14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.)

“there’s not a place Your mercy and grace won’t find me again”) (Ps. 139:7-8 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.)

that are typical of worship songs written to have the widest possible appeal. References to God are there, but God’s praiseworthiness is cast as dependent on his utility to the worshipper, not because he is worthy no matter what. 5/20.

Association: (Copied from prior Elevation song review) Elevation Church vision caster Steven Furtick is a narcissistic, anti-Trinitarian heretic. Aside from his disqualifying association with modalist heretics like T.D. Jakes and prosperity hucksters like Joel Osteen, Furtick’s own teaching is replete with false doctrine. Furtick teaches his own brand of the prosperity gospel, in which he struts around in super expensive clothing while consistently minimizing Jesus and elevating (no pun intended) mankind to a quasi-god status. This false doctrine was made painfully obvious in May of 2021 when Furtick screamed “I am God Almighty!” and the end of a crazy, man-exalting sermon rant.

Having an easily-verifiable false teacher as one of the songwriters is the essence of dangerous association. (This category is handy for Mr. Morrill, because by his own admission it is enough  to disqualify a worship song by itself.

We have found that much of the hyperventilating about Furtick is exaggerated, misunderstood, out of context, or mischaracterized. That is not to say that he hasn't preached problematic things, and we do not intend to defend him, but we think labeling him a false teacher is incorrect.) 0/20.

Musical Value: The southern gospel shuffled waltz is written with genre-typical chordal call-and-response between the tonic and the subdominant (1 and 4 chords), which fits well in a wide array of church settings. It is a perfect musical setting for the personal testimony angle of the lyrics. (Oh, so he does understand the idea of testimony? What?? In a previous section he used this as a criticism to devalue the song: The focus of the song is predictably about the worshipper... 

So is testimony self-focused and bad, or is it part of a perfect musical setting?)

In a non-corporate worship setting (album, concert), many of the lyrical objections to the song become less of a concern, as album songs have a different purpose than the corporate declaration and teaching that characterizes songs used in gathered worship. 15/15.

Total Score: 30/100. Scoring a zero in the association category is automatically disqualifying. (As we mentioned, this is quite useful for disqualifying an otherwise good song.)

Remember, these reviews are about a song’s suitability for use in corporate worship. Apart from the associational danger and the fact that revenue from the song’s monetization feeds a false church, the song itself (like many modern praise songs) would not be nearly as problematic outside the corporate worship context. Yet ironically it needs the corporate worship context with it’s (sic) juvenile modern standard of unspecificity to justify its existence, as the simplicity of the composition would likely render the song unpalatable next to popular secular music. (???? Why are we talking about "popular secular music?" 

There's a problem with the song because it's simple compared to secular music? Has Mr. Morrill ever listened to secular music? Entire songs have been written with one chord. There are songs on the top ten right now that technically have no chords, or even a melody, only a bass riff and digital drums with an auto-tuned rapper.)

The characterization of supernatural miracles (parting the Red Sea) with God’s working through providence (getting that job you want) is both biblically and spiritually abusive. (What?? What does this mean? Who is discussing getting a job? 

Mr. Morrill is hinting at a rather obtuse theological distinction between the direct miraculous and secondary miraculous, which of course has nothing to do with the song. There is nothing in the song that has to do with this theological tension. So this imagined spiritual and biblical abuse is Mr. Morrill's invention.)

Modern songwriters count on mature believers who hear their songs to see solid theology in between the lines, while allowing the immature or lost to read their own desires into the same lyrics. (Which somehow is unique to modern worship songs and never happens with hymns...

This is just dumb. For some reason Mr. Morrill wants to hold the songwriter responsible for the maturity level and response of the listener.)

God works his sovereignty in everything, and we give thanks in and out of season. Resurrection as it applies to us is about Christ’s miraculous resurrection that secures ours, not about any and all temporal concerns of life. (Mr. Morrill closes with a rhetorical flourish that does not come to bear on the topic at hand.)