Saccharine Lyrics: A Response to Kendall Lankford - by Nathan Wright ("How Deep the Father's Love for Us")

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We did a thorough examination of "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" here. The lyric in question is 

How great the pain of searing loss

The Father turns His face away

Reformed doctrine teaches that the Son was imputed with our sins, the Father punished the Son in our place, and that punishment satisfied the Father's wrath. This is known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is the supposed reason the Father turned His face away, that He was unable to look upon the totality of sin imputed to Jesus.

None of this is found in the Bible. We consider it to be a false and pernicious doctrine. Jesus was not imputed with our sin. Rather, He carried and lifted our sin to the cross like He was taking out the garbage. The Father did not punish Jesus. Rather, Jesus died and spilled His blood to wash us clean. The blood was enough. Nothing more was needed, especially not the punishment of Jesus. 

We discuss this in detail here and here.

But more to the point. Mr. Wright will go on and on about Mr. Lankford's word choices, writing style, and lack of understanding. Since this is a technique frequently used by political Leftists, we are disappointed that a supposed Christian would descend to such tactics. However, since the bar is now set low, we shall at times also engage him on his terms and similarly deal with his logical shortcomings.

Happily, Mr. Wright will eventually get to the doctrinal issues, only to gloss over them. His defense is basically just a restatement of what he believes. 

We must consider the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

For thirty years, Biblical churches have been singing “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us.” But that was before Facebook. According to a recent post, there’s one line in the song that has been flying under our heresy detectors this whole time. (Actually, the lyric is completely in line with Reformed/Calvinistic teaching, so it's only considered questionable by non-Calvinists.)

The post is written by Kendall Lankford and has been generously reshared with most reactions ranging from challenged to enlightened. At the outset, I would like to go on the record saying that I did my homework on the man and believe him to be a sound pastor. This discourse is not about the author, but about the article. (But not so much about the contents of the article, unfortunately.)

If my tone is a bit more confrontational than usual, (Actually, the author's tone will be flippant and lazy.)

this is because the article is distinctly accusatory. ("Accusatory?" Who is Mr. Lankford accusing, and of what?

Mr. Wright is setting us up for his major approach to Mr. Lankford: Most all of his presentation will focus on Mr. Lankford's writing style and word choice as opposed to the doctrinal implications.)

It’s not presented as food for thought, a friendly disagreement, or a warning about potential implications. It throws down the gauntlet on the line in question with scathing claims. If my response squares up to this a bit, I hope it will be taken not as an ad hominem, but as more of an age, vir. “Come on, man.” With that said, let’s look at the first paragraph.

“There are lies that slither into the Church with soft melodies and saccharine lyrics, cloaked in minor chords and tear-jerking crescendos. Few have slithered more subtly or struck more effectively than the now-famous refrain: ‘The Father turned His face away.’ It’s meant to evoke solemnity, to stir our hearts into grieving what we have done to God’s Son. But whatever sentiment it aims to elicit, the phrase itself is heresy.”

I can’t help but smile as I’m reminded so much of myself when I first started writing theological articles. One of the first lessons to be learned is: don’t use your thesaurus more than you use your Bible. (Mr. Wright begins his attack on Mr. Lankford's style.)

As a pianist who’s been playing the tune in question at my church for over a decade, I can confirm there is a well-placed D minor in this lyric, but it’s not a refrain and there is no crescendo. (Mr. Wright continues to nitpick words and details...)

This may seem like nitpicking, (It is.)

but it must be noted that misusing words in a long string of dramatic imagery does more damage to your credibility than you realize. (It only damages Mr. wright's credibility, since he is trying his best to Poison The Well.)

So I regret to inform you that you’re still not Doug Wilson. (?? Who is Doug Wilson, and why is he relevant?)

More importantly, “few have slithered in more subtly?” Really? At face value, the lyric is both vivid and straightforward. (Mr. Wright continues to nitpick words and details...)

 

It’s not hidden; and if you claim something is hidden in it, you’ll need citations. The next paragraph will specify the supposed heresy, but nowhere does the article demonstrate an epidemic of false teaching arising from the lyric. (Mr. Wright now employs a Red Herring. Mr. Lankford never claimed that because of the lyric there is an "epidemic of false teaching.")

So far, then, it’s just been making things up. But, moving on.

“It teaches that a fracture occurred in the Trinity. That the eternal union between Father and Son was severed. That God the Father abandoned God the Son. That’s not just bad poetry—it’s blasphemy. It violates the very essence of God’s nature. It denies omnipresence, as though God could not see His Son. It contradicts immutability, as if God could change His posture toward the One in whom He is eternally well-pleased. And worst of all, it renders Calvary as a crime scene rather than the cosmic coronation it was.”

Where to start? That’s easy. The word “teaches.” Stuart Townend, the author of the song, has consistently put forth faithful and rich worship lyrics. (Mr. Wright offers a false defense: Mr. Townend has done a lot of other good songs so this song must be fine.)

If he actually taught things in keeping with that docket of accusations, or if his songs had a track record of strange Trinitarian imagery, then perhaps there would be grounds to question the meaning of the lyric. (Mr. Wright still beats around the bush at ancillary things, but has yet to take up any sort of analysis.)

But if these were the case, it’s doubtful the hymn would be sung in the first place outside circles that make a habit of such behavior. (Who sings the song and how much it is sung is irrelevant. Mr. Lankford is not making a claim that the song is somehow strange, he's pointing out what he perceives as a doctrinal flaw in a song lyric, that it teaches an idea foreign to Scripture.)

A scroll through the comments section also grants some insight into whether the lyric “teaches” these things. (Now Mr. Wright is discussing the comments section from the post. He still hasn't addressed the theology of Mr. Lankford's comments.)

Most of those objecting are stating that such heresies would never have crossed their mind, while most of those agreeing are admitting they’ve never realized these meanings before. Both reactions affirm that no one has ever been taught these things by the lyric. (Sigh. Mr. Wright continues to obsess over a single word, "teach." Now he claims no one has been "taught" anything because of the comments to Mr. Lankford's article. Which of course in a normal world would mean that this limited sample or people didn't learn the thing, not that the thing has not been taught.)

Such interpretations are being forced upon it by someone who can’t decide whether it’s effective or bad poetry. (Mr. Wright persists in evaluating Mr. Lankford's language. He focuses on rabbit trails and irrelevant issues, which in effect are attempts to change the subject from Mr. Lankford's doctrinal concern.)

And now for the third paragraph.

“Let us be clear: the Father did not turn His face away from His Son. He turned toward Him—eyes wide open, heart swelling with holy pride, watching His Son obey to the point of death. The cross was not a moment of divine distance. It was the pinnacle of Trinitarian unity. The Son did not suffer apart from the Father’s presence but within it—with the Father’s pleasure blazing like a furnace. As Isaiah prophesied, ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him’ (Isaiah 53:10)”

Well, so much for the omnipresence and immutability arguments. If the Father turned toward His Son, by the same logic, wouldn’t that mean that He was turned away from Him before? (Mr. Wright persists in parsing Mr. Lankford's language, thereby avoiding any need to actually address the points raised.)

The article can’t escape the figures of speech it tries to attack. While most of the article’s remainder just overworks the same points, it does go on to show some awareness of Psalm 22.

“When Jesus cried out, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ (Psalm 22:1), He was not announcing abandonment. He was invoking a song. That line is the opening verse of Psalm 22—a psalm every Jew would have known by heart. A psalm that begins in anguish but crescendos into resurrection, vindication, and global worship. Jesus was not unraveling—He was unveiling. He was not despairing—He was declaring. And by declaring the first line, He summoned the entire song into the moment. It was an indictment, a revelation, a coronation.”

Lankford then points out that verse 24 specifically says God has not hidden His face from the afflicted. (Let's actually quote it: 

Ps. 22:24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

This is a messianic statement the contradicts Mr. Wright's entire thesis. Case closed.)

Indeed, the Psalm is filled with chronological prophecies from Christ’s indictment to His reign. (That is exactly Mr. Lankford's point, that Jesus quoted the first verse of Psalm 22 to point to its messianic statements, not to describe some sort of abandonment. Quite simply, Jesus was not abandoned.)

But the cross was not the coronation. (More parsing of language...)

Even Christ’s passing from death to paradise (Luke 23:43) is not associated with His coronation in Scripture. His ascension is. (Please stop, Mr. Wright. You're like those internet trolls who mock people for making a spelling mistake and then use it as a reason to dismiss or impugn.)

Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (No one is debating Christ's majesty.)

Additionally, there are many other psalms that do use the imagery of God turning His face away. (It almost seems that Mr. Wright has finally decided to actually consider the doctrinal issues. But instead of analyzing the issue as presented, he diverts to other parts of the Bible that use similar terminology as the song lyric. But the actual statement of Jesus was, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? "Forsaken," not "hide your face." That is the term Mr. Wright should be using in his word search of the Bible.)

The psalmist always established, whether expressly or assumptively, that this was not a state of being cast off from God’s access, but a rather a state of humiliation. (But Jesus used the word "forsaken!" This most certainly is not explained by "a state of humiliation.")

Psalm 13:1 How long, O Lord? Will You forget me forever?

How long will You hide Your face from me? (Not a messianic psalm.)

Psalm 30:7 Lord, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong;

You hid Your face, and I was troubled. (Not a messianic psalm.)

Psalm 88:14 Lord, why do You cast off my soul?

Why do You hide Your face from me? (Not a messianic psalm.)

While not all these verses share the same context, they cannot be ignored if we wish to understand the consistency of Psalm 22. Remember that Christ was not typifying David; rather, David wrote the Psalm typifying Christ. It was a prophetic quote. (No, Jesus quoted it to bring attention to the Psalm and its messianic content. This was necessary for there were no chapters or verses back then.)

When the Father turned His face away, (The Father did not turn His face away. The author persists in the song's lyrics rather than Jesus' statement.

There is no verse that says He turned His face away from Jesus.) 

He was not cutting Christ out of the Godhead. (No one has claimed this.)

He was interrupting His common grace, the light of His presence, and the joy of His communion from the Godman. (No, He was not. This did not happen. There is no Bible verse that tell us this.)

“The reason the Psalter is my prayer book and the reason it’s your prayer book, and the reason it’s my hymnal and the reason it’s your hymnal, is not because all of these verses apply immediately and directly to me, but because I am in union with Jesus Christ. I have died with Him on the cross. I have been resurrected with Him from the dead. And therefore, what He prays I can pray—not because they apply in the most direct sense to me, but because I am in union with Him; and therefore, anything that applies to His humanity ends up applying to my humanity. And the amazing thing is that the thought life and the emotional life and the volitional life of our Lord are more clearly expressed in the Psalter than anywhere else—and probably, you see in a direct sense, a first-person sense, more direct than even the Gospels. You want to know what the emotional life of our Lord is? You read the Psalms.”— Richard Bledsoe (Very pretty, but irrelevant.)

Not surprisingly, the most thorough and concise exposition of this imagery is found in the book of Isaiah. Christ was defiled so that He might bear the burden of what it does to our relationship with the Father. (Jesus did not need a lesson on what it's like to harm a relationship with the Father. There is no Bible verse that says such an outrageous thing.)

When God hides His face from one who is defiled, (Jesus was not defiled. God did not hide His face. The sole issue raised by Mr. Lankford is simply dismissed by Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright then assumes his premise is true and simply reasserts it.)

it is He who is hidden from that one, not the other way around.

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,

or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;

but your iniquities have made a separation

between you and your God,

and your sins have hidden his face from you

so that he does not hear. (Jesus was not separated from the Father. He had no iniquities and was not a sinner.)

Contrary to the article’s narrow interpretation, this is all the lyric necessarily means. It takes a figure of speech from Scripture, applies it contextually, and should continue to be sung in good conscience. (No, it mistakes a Scripture as meaning something it does not mean, therefore teaching a lie.)

Lankford is arguing with a statement that doesn’t want to argue with him. Many forefathers in the faith, however, would argue with him, as seen in quotes from all throughout church history. (Appeal to History and theologians who agree with Mr. Wright. This is not the biblical case.)

Here are a few.

“They who would invent evasions for this express complaint of our Saviour, that he was deserted and forsaken, as that he spake it in reference to his church, or of his own, being left to the power and malice of the Jews, do indeed little less than blaspheme him; and say he was not forsaken of God, when himself complains that he was. Forsaken, I say, not by the disjunction of his personal union; but as to the communication of effects of love and favour, which is the desertion that the damned lie under in hell.”— John Owen

“When Jesus bows his head to the stroke of the law, when he submissively consents that his Father shall turn away his face from him, then myriads of worlds are astonished at the perfect holiness and stern justice of the Lawgiver. There are, probably, worlds innumerable throughout the boundless creation of God, and all these will see, in the death of God’s dear Son, a declaration of his determination never to allow sin to be trifled with. If his own Son is brought before him, bearing the sin of others upon him, he will hide his face from him, as well as from the actually guilty.”— Charles Spurgeon

“The cry ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ is the most terrifying moment in Scripture. At that moment, Jesus became the most grotesque, most vile thing in the universe; He became sin. And the Father, whose eyes are too pure to look upon iniquity, turned His back.”— R. C. Sproul

 

(All these men are Reformed/Calvinist. Of course they believe the Reformed/Calvinist interpretation of what Jesus said.)

On a scale of Justin Peters to Todd White, these quotes may seem to lean right of center. But in truth, there is no historical church teaching that associates this figure of speech with heresy (Another Appeal To History. This is simply a case of "everyone with whom I agree agrees.")

—and remember, most of church history has been far more vigilant and organized in keeping false teachers out. (If the idea that the Father turned his face away is and was widely accepted by those with whom he agrees, why would there be any sort of vigilance to keep it out?)

I propose that social media has wrought a new theological climate: one in which the word “heresy” is so light that it can be shot like a Nerf dart at any idea with the potential for misuse, even if no misuse occurs. In the case of song lyrics, while most CCM deserves the pushback it gets, it’s far too easy for anyone to pick a modern worship song lyric, pop in a nicotine pouch, take to Facebook, and write a glorified freakout about some imaginary heresy in it.

When it comes to the article in question, I have a word of backhanded encouragement: don’t be suckers for contrarianism. There is much irony in the fact that the article boasts excessive figures of speech, yet its purpose is to attack one figure of speech based on a misinterpretation. Perhaps I could say, “There are accusations that slither into the church with bloated sentences and colossal straw men.”

When it comes to the subject of the lyric, I have a word of genuine encouragement: before you attempt to describe it, first marvel at the divine mystery. Our Savior was placed under judicial condemnation (This did not happen.)

that did not affect His oneness with the Father. Even in Heaven, we may never fully understand it; but it will be the reason we are there. May it humble us and turn our faces to Him.