Photo by Christoph Schmid
Cory Asbury is a worship leader from Bethel Church in Redding, California. Back in 2009, he released Let Me See Your Eyes, a collection of indie-pop songs intended to bolster a passion for Jesus and sense His presence. He is also featured on Bethel Music’s 2016 album Have it All with Asbury’s hit single Son of God.
Before Asbury’s album “Reckless Love” released, several artists (including Michael W. Smith, Darlene Zschech, and her HopeUC team) have included track Reckless Love in their worship sets. Smith, specifically, will cover Asbury’s Reckless Love in his own upcoming album Surrounded on February 23, 2018. It seems clear that there were high expectations and hopes for this album prior to release!
Now that it’s out in the wild, Reckless Love has grown immensely in popularity. It is making its way around churches, used for praise and worship! With such powerful lyrics, how will it compare to the Bible? Let’s find out!
Lyrics can be found at https://genius.com/Cory-asbury-reckless-love-lyrics.
Note to new users: This is a different kind of review site! Read About the Berean Test and Evaluation Criteria prior to reading this review. I strongly encourage you to consider the potential blessings and dangers of this artist‘s theology by visiting Resources.
1. What message does the song communicate?
The term “reckless” carries with it a negative connotation. According to Merriam-Webster, it means “marked by lack of proper caution: careless of consequences.” Asbury spins this term, speaking to the reckless love of God; however, his usage is unsettling as it suggests God acts without thought and care for His creation. This love God has for us is unending, overwhelming, unearned, sacrificial, without barriers, and prior to our existence. it is a song of praise to Him who loves us. I understand the intent: God recklessly abandons the 99 righteous for the one unrighteous, unworthy, undeserving. Asbury even wrote a facebook post defending his position. That does not change my discomfort in the use of language.
There is much discussion in the commentary regarding the identity of the 99 sheep and the shepherd. I initially believed that God is the shepherd and was convinced by Dan that it was the Pharisees; However, in light of Neal Cruco’s latest comment, I’ve concluded once again that it’s God, leaving behind 99 righteous, angelic beings (see section 2).
I would have liked to see an explanation as to why God loves us so much. The answer, of course, is found within 1 John 4:8: that God is love. It is His nature to love us according to His will and purpose (Romans 8:28).
Score: 7/10
2. How much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?
Almost all of it! However, God’s love is not reckless.
[Verse 1]
Line 1: The only reference I could find where God sings over us is in Zephaniah 3:17.
Line 2: In accordance to His will, God does in some instances deal kindly with us as He has done with Israel and the early Christian Church in the past. See Exodus 33:19, Psalm 13:6, Psalm 23:6, Psalm 27:13, Psalm 84:11, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 119:68, Psalm 145:9, Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:13, Romans 2:4, Philippians 1:6, and 1 Peter 2:1-3
Line 3: God knew us before we were born and knitted us in our mothers’ wombs (Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 49:15, and Jeremiah 1:5).
Line 4: See line 2.
[Chorus]
Line 1: God’s lovingkindness knows no boundaries. See Nehemiah 9:17, Psalm 17:7, Psalm 36:5-7, Psalm 63:3, Psalm 69:16, Psalm 117:2, Isaiah 54:8, John 3:16, John 13:34, John 15:13, Romans 5:6-8, Romans 8:37-39, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 2:4-5, Ephesians 5:25, Titus 3:4, 1 John 4:8, and 1 John 4:16-19. However, the term “reckless”, as Merriam-webster defines it, is completely antithetical to the character and nature of God. God is not reckless. Perhaps “passionate” would have been a better term as that is what I believe Asbury was going for.
Line 2: The parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-10 is where Cory Asbury drew his inspiration. I cross-referenced Luke 15 with Matthew 18:1-14 (particularly verses 12-14). Verse 10 tells us that angels “continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven” and Verse 11, “the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost”. It’s in this context that Jesus tells (again?) the parable of the lost sheep in reference to the Father’s will that little ones not perish (see Verse 14). So, although as Dan correctly point outs, the players are different, and that the sheep are lost in Luke 15 and wayward in Matthew 18, humans cannot be righteous sheep that require no repentance. Angelic beings make sense, which, in light of Philippians 2:6-11 and Hebrews 2:5-8, means that Jesus left the 99 righteous Angelic creatures, along with His throne and glory, to become temporarily, in position, lower than the angels, for the one lost sheep, which is all of humanity or all the elect in humanity (I won’t turn this into a Calvinism/Arminianism debate). Therefore, Asbury is correct on this point.
Also, this imagery is an example of God’s love fights for us.
Line 3: We are all guilty before God (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23). God gives grace to us, which literally means “unmerited favor” (2 Corinthians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 12:9 and Ephesians 2:8-9). It is through Christ, who gave Himself away on our behalf (Isaiah 53:1-12, Mark 10:45, John 15:13, Romans 15:3, Galatians 1:3-4, Ephesians 5:2, Philippians 2:5-8, Titus 2:11-14, 1 John 3:16, and Revelation 5:9), that we receive God’s grace because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
Line 4: Repeat of line 1.
[Verse 2]
Line 1: We were enemies of God whom Christ died to save (Romans 5:6-10).
Line 2: Repeat of line 2 in Verse 1.
Line 3: The atoning work of Jesus Christ paid for our sins. See Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:1-12, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, John 1:29, John 3:16, Acts 4:12, Acts 20:28, Romans 5:6-10, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 1 Corinthians 6:20, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 1:3-4, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 2:14, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:14, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:22, Hebrews 9:26, 1 Peter 1:17-21, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 2:1-2, and Revelation 5:9.
Line 4: Repeat of line 4 in Verse 1.
[Bridge]
External barriers cannot separate us from God’s love for us (Romans 8:38-39).
Score: 7/10
3. How would an outsider interpret the song?
They will get a sense that God is willing to do almost anything to have us. He shows sacrificial love. Given that this is a worship song, without a spiritual background, it will be difficult for them to understand why God loves us. Only that He does, with no explanation.
Score: 7/10
4. What does this song glorify?
The love of God for us; however, Asbury slipped by stating God’s love is reckless, as I already explained in sections 1 and 2.
Score: 7/10
Closing Comments
With such high hopes, Asbury’s track Reckless Love takes what is a negative term and attempts to turn it on its head, without success; However, It does speak to the power and glory of God’s love for us, the lengths and depths God is willing to go through to have us.
While I would have liked to see in the lyrics why God loves us so much, it is overall mostly biblical, positive, and uplifting. Feel free to use this as part of your worship set if you’re not bothered by the word “reckless” as I am; However, understand that some of your parishioners might take exception. Perhaps it would be wiser to choose a less controversial song.
Score: 7/10
Artist Info
Track: Reckless Love (listen to the song)
Artist: Cory Asbury
Album: Reckless Love
Genre: Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)
Release Year: 2018
Duration: 5:31 (4:00 for the radio version)
Agree? Disagree? Don’t be shy or have a cow! Calmly and politely state your case in a comment, below.
Updates:
07/16/2021 – Per Artist Theology announcement, I expanded the red text to encourage others to study Bethel Music’s theology, which Asbury is a leader.
09/18/2020 – Updated commentary on God’s love fighting until we’re found. This did not affect my rating.
05/16/2020 – Upon prayerfully examining Neal Cruco’s “angel” theory for the 99 sheep in contrast to Dan’s comments, I agree with him and updated my commentary with a mix of earlier edits and fresh ideas, sharply increasing its score from 5/10 to 7/10. I also fixed several spelling and grammatical errors. Finally, I moved all the updates to the end of the review to align with other pages, retrofitting the dates by which I updated this page.
08/25/2019 – I was too harsh on the scoring using Dan’s analysis, focusing on the errors and not giving enough credit for what Ausbury does right. Therefore, I increased the overall score from 2.5/10 to 5/10.
08/13/2019 – Commenter Dan reminded me that the shepherd in Luke 15 are the Pharisees, not our Heavenly Father nor Jesus. Given that the verses and Bridge depend on a correct interpretation of the Chorus, the entire lyrics unraveled, resulting in a sharply lowered overall score from 7.5/10 to 2.5/10.
05/10/2019 – To bring this review in line with my other work, I slightly downgraded section 4, slightly lowering the overall score from 8/10 to 7.5/10.
06/18/2018 – This review originally had a review score of 9/10. I altered it based on much prayer after receiving feedback in the comments.
Comments
Filip Larsson
With all due respect, brother. I love your website and usually agree with you. I agree that the word reckless doesn’t fit well in a worship song. I get what Cory Asbury tries to say (I mean, in some sense, through our human perspective, the love of God is foolish – Paul even uses that kind of language) but I don’t think it actually says what Cory wants it to say. He should have gone for another word.
BUT i have a few concerns about this review. I hope that you will read and think through what I’m about to write. With love:
1. I think you’re missing the point of both Luke 15 and Matthew 18. The parable (like the two following parables in Luke 15) is a direct answer (!) to the Pharisees questioning that Jesus hangs out with sinners. To answer he points out something the Pharisees themselves would do, and explains that the “heavenly priorities” are the same.
Mt. 18:14:
“So [that is, in the same way that it is not the shepherd’s will that the sheep should perish] it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
In other words: Jesus lines up the fathers will for his “little ones” right next to the shepherds will for his sheep.
In Luke 15 he continues with the parable of the lost coin and the parable of the prodigal son. Two parables on the exact same theme, to answer the same question (Why would Jesus dine with sinners?). The point is not that the shepherd does not care for the 99 sheep, nor is it that the woman does not care for the 9 coins, and it is absolutely not that the father does not care for the older brother.
The father’s answer to him: “Son, you are always with me” goes for the 99 sheep and the 9 coins as well. The point of the story is not that they are left alone, but that the shepherd, the woman, the father – like God – rejoices when the lost sheep, coin, brother or sinner is found.
These three parables are Jesus way of saying to the Pharisees: “See what I’m doing right now? I’m off searching for the lost sheep, looking for the lost coin, welcoming the lost son. The father, together with all of heaven, rejoices when the lost are found. Yes, even when one single sinner repents.”
Combine what I’ve just pointed out with the passages where Jesus outright talks of himself as a shepherd and us as the sheep, and it is actually not that far fetched to talk of God as a shepherd who would leave the 99. And to be fair (especially towards Cory and this song), that interpretation has been commonly used through out all of Church History.
If you still chose to not interpret the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep as a metaphor of God, then you should at least be consistent and apply that same interpretation on the other two parables, including the father of the prodigal son.
2. You say that you cannot find any biblical evidence for God fighting until you are found, or his love fighting for you. But is that really so? I mean, even if the language isn’t explicitly used, I believe the overarching themes are there. It is not as if good and evil is fighting on equal terms, not at all. But still:
a) David, fighting Goliath on behalf of the Israelites is an amazing prototype of Christ fighting sin, death and devil on behalf of his people.
b) Salvation is throughout the New Testament described with military language, it is described as Christ overcoming, conquering, disarming, etc. For example: Col 2:15, Jn 16:33, 1 Cor 15:55.
c) It is appropriate language, since he actually took on human flesh and died on a cross, bearing the sins of the world, to defeat both Satan and my flesh. Isn’t that a fight? Isn’t that his love fighting for us?
I get that it might not be the clearest way to express it, since it requires some knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology. But isn’t that the case with many hymns and worship songs?
I still wouldn’t sing this song in my church, but it is important to be fair.
God bless you, keep up the good work!
Vince Wright
Filip,
Thanks for your thoughts. In terms of the three parables, this has been thoroughly explained in https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32.
As for fighting until found, these passages are about God’s protection of His people, not “fighting until I’m found”.
Regarding God’s love fighting for me, there is ample Biblical support for this in Exodus 14:14, Deuteronomy 3:22, Deuteronomy 20:4, Joshua 1:9, Joshua 23:10, Psalms 44:5, and Romans 8:31. However, what I meant is within the context of the 99 and the 1. I slightly altered the language to make this more clear.
-Vince Wright
Dan
Candidly, I’ve never really understood the desire to shoehorn Jesus into the role of the shepherd in Luke 15 when Jesus Himself tells us who the shepherd actually is. When people misinterpret this parable what happens is that they get confused and end up writing songs like “Reckless Love”. Ironically, Asbury is not wrong that the shepherd that leaves the 99 is indeed, “reckless”. For what else would you call a shepherd that leaves his sheep out in the open countryside at risk as anything BUT reckless?
Asbury’s error is in thinking that the shepherd represents God and the sheep left out in the open represent Christians. As Bob Deffinbaugh explains in his article over at Bible.org regarding the parable of the lost sheep/coin/son, this cannot be true:
Excerpted from Lost and Found (Luke 15:1-32) by Bob Deffinbaugh
While I appreciate Filip Larsson’s thoughtful post, I believe he makes several errors and if he’ll allow, I’ll explain…
FL: “The parable (like the two following parables in Luke 15) is a direct answer (!) to the Pharisees questioning that Jesus hangs out with sinners.”
As Deffinbaugh points out, the parable is about the Pharisee’s love of things compared to God’s love of people. In the first two he illustrates their materialism while in the the third parable (the Prodigal) he CONTRASTS God’s patience in waiting for the return of the lost son and the rejoicing that came thereafter.
However, this is not my main criticism of Filip’s first point. My concern is the second part where he conflates the subject matter of the Luke 15 parable to that of Matthew 18.
While the story has SIMILAR CHARACTERS it has major plot differences and is clearly intended to teach a different point.
A. The audience members in Matthew 18 are the disciples not the Pharisees – so we already know that Jesus is taking on a different issue than He was in Luke.
B. The shepherd is not analogous to the Pharisees as in Luke 15 but simply “a man”. Jesus makes no attempt to liken Himself to this particular shepherd (as he does for example, in the sheep parable in the book of John.) This “man” may be analogous to the disciples in His audience much like the Pharisees are the shepherd in the Luke story.
C. The flock in Matthew 18 are BELIEVERS in contrast to the flock as generic possessions of Luke 15 (the Part B to the parable about coins is our clue that Jesus is talking about “things” not people).
D. In Luke 15 the shepherd LOSES the sheep and the woman LOSES the coin. This implies negligence on their part. Meanwhile, in Matthew 18 Jesus very pointedly tells his disciples that the one sheep WANDERED AWAY implying volition on the part of the sheep/weaker brother and nothing to do with the negligence of the shepherd.
This is a huge difference between the two stories. Jesus is making a completely different point with the wandering sheep parable, which is why it should NEVER be conflated with the Luke 15 parable. Matthew 18 is about the weaker brother and the relationship between believers. Luke 15 is about men’s love of things vs. God’s love of people.
E. The shepherd leaves his flock in the protection of the hills in Matthew 18 rather than out in the open countryside as in Luke 15.
Jesus is changing up the story in important and maybe subtle ways, but clearly, the context of Matthew, chapter 18 as a whole tell us that this parable is entirely different than the one in Luke 15.
FL: “Combine what I’ve just pointed out with the passages where Jesus outright talks of himself as a shepherd and us as the sheep, and it is actually not that far fetched to talk of God as a shepherd who would leave the 99….”
Certainly Jesus does speak of Himself as the shepherd in several places – but be careful here. Some places shepherds are good and some places they are bad so obviously all shepherds can’t be Jesus. I would reiterate that Jesus told three sheep parables in the NT and in only ONE of them does He liken Himself to the shepherd in the story. In the others He unambiguously does not.
FL: “…And to be fair (especially towards Cory and this song), that interpretation has been commonly used through out all of Church History.””
I’ve already stated earlier in this thread why I believe Asbury should not be accorded any leeway on this matter regardless of past misinterpretation of this parable. He’s the one who wrote the heretical lyrics and despite its divisiveness, continues to defend them. My point is that we must consider the whole counsel of Scripture which clearly states that God would NEVER leave us as opposed to what Asbury is claiming.
FL: “If you still chose to not interpret the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep as a metaphor of God, then you should at least be consistent and apply that same interpretation on the other two parables, including the father of the prodigal son.”
Candidly, I don’t understand this argument at all. I choose NOT to shoehorn God into the role of the reckless and materialistic shepherd/Pharisee and therefore, the woman can’t be God either. Since the 3rd parable is in CONTRAST to the first two, then we SHOULD place God into the role of the father who patiently waits for his son’s return. The three parables can only be understood as a contrast between the behavior and attitude of the Pharisees vs. God the Father.
FL: “You say that you cannot find any biblical evidence for God fighting until you are found, or his love fighting for you. But is that really so? I mean, even if the language isn’t explicitly used, I believe the overarching themes are there. It is not as if good and evil is fighting on equal terms, not at all. But still:
[And then Filip gives a few examples].
I believe Filip is offering an undeserved defense of Asbury’s underlying rationale for why he chose the word “reckless”. Asbury is clearly using the parable of the lost sheep as the basis for his lyric. The shepherd recklessly leaves the bulk of his flock to go in search of the one lost lamb. What Asbury is NOT using as a basis for his lyric are stories like David and Goliath or other military adventures found throughout Scripture. And no, I don’t see Jesus sacrifice on the cross at all like David & Goliath or other military imagery found elsewhere in Scripture. If anything, the opposite is true.
Jesus willingly gave himself WITHOUT a fight. Peter pulled his sword but Jesus chastised him for doing it. The father WAITED and when the son returned, he welcomed him gladly while the brother (the Pharisee analog) was unhappy with the attitude of the father. No “fighting” in view here.
FL: “I get that it might not be the clearest way to express it, since it requires some knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology. But isn’t that the case with many hymns and worship songs?”
It DOES require knowledge of the Bible and Christian Theology to determine what hymns and worship songs are good and which are bad (or heretical). Theologically, one should always look at Scriptural context in these situations. This is why the parables of these various sheep in Matthew, Luke, and John have to be considered as separate teachings about divergent subjects. The fact that sheep and shepherds are used is simply a reflection of how His audience would relate to what He was about to teach. It doesn’t mean the metaphors are the same in these various stories just because he is referencing livestock in each. And to be clear, I am not saying that Asbury is conflating the Matthew and Luke sheep parables. I’m only saying that in defending “Reckless Love”, many people are.
FL: “I still wouldn’t sing this song in my church, but it is important to be fair.”
Have I been unfair with Asbury? I haven’t spoken to his INTENTIONS. I can’t know what they are, whether fame, popularity, profit, or a sincere desire to get a catchy worship song into the lexicon. That is not my point. Rather I only note that it is HE who wrote a song placing Jesus in the role of the reckless and materialistic shepherd. Asbury is the one who is saying that despite countless Scriptural references saying God would NEVER leave us, that apparently when in search of the lost He DOES leave us. Plus, is it not Asbury who has himself, defended this song by saying that from the unbeliever’s point of view God can appear reckless? As I wrote earlier, the secular and pagan world thinks a lot of wrong things about God but since when should we put their wrong thinking into our worship songs?
I would remind all who have read my earlier critique of this song, that I don’t even think the use of word “reckless” is the worst aspect of this song. My major problem is Asbury claiming that God would leave the 99 despite all his promises to the contrary. To say God would do this is to call God a liar and THAT is the key reason this song should never be sung in a Bible-believing church.
Best regards,
Dan
Jodi Schulteis
Well stated Filip! You put together many of the same thoughts and citations I have running through my mind, specifically about “shepherd” representing Jesus in this parable. In fact, my study Bible says “The lost sheep represents the sinner, while God, especially the Son, is the shepherd. The found sheep is every Christian, rescued and delivered by God. The neighbors are the saints and angels who rejoice together. The emphasis is not on neglecting the flock, but on seeking the lost. In the first of 3 similar parables, Jesus uses the devotion of a shepherd to illustrate God’s willingness to find the wayward sinner. God does not abandon us to our foolishness but seeks us out, calling us to repentance and to faith in the Gospel.” The Lutheran Study Bible -LCMS
As for the comment mentioned by someone, that Luke 15 has nothing to do with Ezekiel, I point out in fact Ezekiel 34:4 and 6 are cross referenced for Luke 15:4!
I close with thankfulness that we have the opportunity to dig into the Word and open our hearts and minds to listen to how the Holy Spirit is speaking to us, which is pleasing to Him. To God be the glory!!
Charles Busada
But sister Jodi. . . I think that the verse you refer to (1 Cor:25) says the opposite of what you claim.
Paul writes: “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” … [18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
So, in no way is Paul saying that God’s love is foolish (reckon-less), or His word for that matter. We know this as Paul links God’s foolishness with God’s weakness. Certainly Paul would not refer the the Almighty, Everlasting God etc. as having any weakness. That is unfathomable, for it would be saying that God is not God (and I’m told that this is against the logical “law of non-contradiction.”)
And, to boot, we see that the “foolishness” of God is only foolishness to the non-believer, not to the lost sheep. For to the believer, God’s Word (love) is the power of God unto salvation. This Word, this Love is not reckless, it is quite well thought out, don’t you think?
Sorry, I guess that I’m a hardliner. Now, this is pure speculation, but I wonder if the modern industry driven worship song, that many songs are saying the same thing (love is a quite common theme, wrath not so much). So, it seems that we are running out of adjectives to describe love. And, it probably brings more attention to your song if you give it some shock value in the title. I’m not saying that brother Asbury did this consequently. But I would wager that his song got a lot more attention due to that title.
And we must remember that “reckless” does not mean ‘foolish, out of control, or heading for a crash. “Reckless” means “recon-less” It means doing something without thought. The shepherd who left his sheep for the lost one might have well thought out the consequences and still left the fold for the lost one because his love for the lost one was so strong.
Jodi Schulteis
Charles,
I am NOT in fact referring to 1Corintians:1:25! If you re-read my post, I am quoting my study Bible’s comments directly from Luke 15:1-7 here it is once again “In the first of three similar parables, Jesus uses the devotion of a shepherd to illustrate God’s willingness to find the wayward sinner. God does not abandon us to our foolishness but seeks us out, calling us to repentance and to faith in the Gospel.”
I hope that clarifies my comment.
Charles Busada
Jodi, I’m sorry. I did not mean to offend. You are correct, you did not refer to 1 Cor 1.25. But, your commentary seemed to allude to it.
Your commentary ended with, “God does not abandon us to our foolishness but seeks us out, calling us to repentance and to faith in the Gospel.””
This appeared to me as a conflation of 1 Cor 1.25 and 2 Cor 7:10.
Sorry again!
Charles
Joy
Hopefully, this will help https://www.gotquestions.org/leave-the-99.html
Dan
I feel I’ve laid out the argument against this song fairly well and have yet to see a rebuttal that makes any exegetical sense. Certainly saying that because the song is a popular #1 Christian song can’t be a serious theological argument but maybe this is what passes for a defense of songs like this in this day and age?
I’m always saddened when I see people do a hit and run post like Steve’s. People resort to ad hominem, calling others bullies, and then leave in a huff. I suppose that’s fine – people believe what they want to believe. Nevertheless, I tend to doubt that TastyWallet thinks he’s been bullied but I’ll leave that response to him. I’m simply here on a forum that is well-read to point out that this particular song is not at all what it appears and that the fact that it’s popular is all the more reason to debate the issues involved with it.
Grounded Christians are commanded to call out heresies when we see them. This song is so obviously heretical, when the facts are listed, that I hardly consider it to be “bullying” to point this out.
What is interesting with regard to the debate around this song is that the lyrics are clearly divisive and that in itself, should be a red flag to worship pastors. A lot of people discern the obvious problems while others, like Steve, find no issue in singing a song that calls God careless and a liar. Personally, I would not attend a church where the leadership allowed people to raise up their voices to God and then call Him a liar. I just can’t abide that.
I appreciate that TastyWallet has prayerfully studied the issues and come to realize that not only is the word “reckless” a serious problem, but the underlying theology is even more questionable.
As for Asbury, I believe he figured he found a clever hook and managed to leverage it to get a top billed song. He was successful in this despite his spurious claim in the lyric that Jesus would abandon his flock to chase after the lost, or his subsequent defense of the lyrics of the song through an appeal to Open Theism.
However you look at it, whether good intentions or intentional false teaching; the song should still be pulled from the worship lexicon in any Bible-believing church.
Vince Wright
Dan,
I do not feel bullied, but I did recently increase the score to 5/10. I felt that I did not give Asbury enough credit for the things he gets right.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed yet, I switched to using my real name.
-Vince Wright
Dan
This is fine Vince. Since he gets it half right, I guess 5 out of 10 is one way to approach it.
I would still maintain that a song that calls God careless and a liar should get zero out of 10 but it is your blog after all. ;-/
Cheers.
Steve Kuhn
Dan, I can se you and others are heavily invested in explaining Mr. Asbury’s intentions concerning the lyrics of this song. I would guess only the writer knows for sure. Myself, as well as others on this site happen to like the song. In fact it has gotten some well deserved accolades, such as being #1 on the Christian equivalent to Billboard top 40. And it has been on that list for over a year!
I heard the song first in my church, and we just love it! When I heard “reckless” I didn’t come unhinged over the use of the word. Instead I thought to myself the writer had found a creative expression that shows just how far God will go to love us, and have us love him in return. In no way shape or form do I think God is offended by this song. But He might just be disappointed in how folks on this site are reacting to it.
You folks have had you say, and that is mine. I am disappointed to see tastywallet reduce the song’s score to 2.5. I feel he has succumbed to what I consider bullying. And that, my brothers and sisters in Christ is sad. For those of you who disagree with me, and am sure there are plenty – don’t bother responding because this is the last time I will look through comments concerning this song…
Thushetha
As much as i detest posting in defense of a song that belittles God’s love to being reckless, the context of God being portrayed as the shepherd in the lyrics, or the link that Jesus was talking about Pharisees as being the shepherd, I would not agree with. In any instance, the parables were spoken to the crowd to speak of instances of how God operates in simple terms to the people. If in Luke, the parable referred to Pharisees, it wouldn’t continue to speak of how heaven rejoices over the one that is found again. “7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” The sheep refers to one sinner, and the shepherd is obviously Christ as I don’t see pharisees rejoicing over one sinner that repents from sinning.
The link of prodigal son to the lost sheep is two different ways of expression of God’s love. True, in the prodigal son, the father did not go looking for the son because the son knew who the father was and yet ran away in his own way. Knowing the depth of the father’s love and blessing. The father waited for the son to return, knowing he will return form his rebellion. In the case of the sheep that went astray, literally speaking, the sheep is an animal. It knows not nor doesn’t think. It doesn’t have the capacity to be calculative or remember the way back as a human would.
Ezekiel, could be quoted for the romanticized bridge of the song. Ezekiel 34:11-16 New International Version (NIV)
11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: *I myself will search for my sheep and look after them*. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
I always had a problem with the bridge as I felt it was a poetic expression until i read the above verses in Ezekiel. “so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land.” wow…
The song wouldn’t have been as controversial if the term reckless were substituted with “Unfathomable”.
I doubt when Cory wrote the song he actually meant to disrespect God and wanted to be radical when penning down the lyrics. But distortion of the Truth is rampant in many leading songs and artists these days. I as a worship leader, do not want to endorse or be a part of it. Unless a song speaks truth or His Word I don’t include such songs.
In choosing this song, it boils down to this.. for singing such a song in Church gathering or for corporate worship… If the song means that it brings disruption in the flow of worship or hindrance to one being connected or in agreement with the lyrics / worship, I’d rather not sing it.
Reckless means “marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences”. A human calling God reckless is quite idiotic and him trying to justify the word is even idiotic. God was never careless of consequences. Hello??? we’re talking about God the Father here. He knew what He was doing. He knows the beginning from the end.
Its just this one word that makes the song reckless… the rest of it, it beautifully written.
I’ll never include this song in anyone my sessions simply cause of the word “reckless”. The song cannot be appreciated simply cos that one word derails the whole purpose of worship and glorification of His name. Plainly put, that one word distorts the Truth itself.
Dan
I’m encouraged to hear you won’t use this song, even if only just because Asbury gets it wrong on his use of the word “reckless”.
As for what I see as your misinterpretation of the parable, did you read Bob Deffinbaugh’s excellent exegetical look at the parable’s mentioned in an earlier post?
https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32
If the shepherd is Jesus then the 99 must represent believers. If that’s the case then a.) God truly IS reckless for abandoning His own and b.) Asbury is calling God a liar, which I personally think is worse than calling him reckless.
The context of the first two parables is about man’s love of material possessions while the third is about God’s love of people.
There are a couple of nice lyrics in the song but Asbury gets his theology so wrong on multiple points that it doesn’t surprise me that people are confused.
Thushetha
Hey Dan,
That’s where Ezekiel steps in… and God clearly says He goes out to the ends to find His sheep…. and there’s no word that clearly interprets His heart better than His word..
Thushetha
Actually read the whole Ezekiel 34th chapter.. it makes more sense.
Dan
Yes, Ezekiel 34 further strengthens the message of the parable where the shepherd is clearly being negligent in not caring for the 99 sheep, leaving them at the mercy of the “wild animals”.
The Pharisees to whom Jesus was telling the lost sheep parable knew that Jesus was telling them that THEY were the careless shepherd in his story.
And of course, Ezekiel’s “flock” represents the nation of Israel and So Ezekiel was calling out the negligent shepherds/leaders of his day.
The key message of Ezekiel 34 is that they are not taking care of the entire flock PLUS not seeking after the lost.
Bottom line, it’s a major stretch to align the Luke 15 parable to Ezekiel but to the extent it can be, the shepherd in the parable is the one who abandons his flock.
James
Are you serious right now how is Luke 15 not talking about Jesus being the ultimate Shepard it is a parable meaning there is meaning behind the story. Meaning that if the Shepard lost 1 sheep he would go back for it as does Jesus go back for his lost. Come on guys you dropped the ball on this one
tastywallet
James,
Thanks for the challenge! The following Luke 15:1-7 quote is from the NASB, emphasis mine.
15 Now all the tax collectors and the [a]sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
3 So He told them this parable, saying, 4 “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the [b]open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Did you follow the pronouns? The antecedent of the pronouns “he”, “his” “I” and “my” is “what man among you”, which is directed towards the Pharisees and the scribes. This is the subject of these sentences, the shepherd of which Jesus speaks. Missing is any statement or allusion towards a Heavenly Father or Christ Himself identified as the shepherd in the context of this passage of Scripture.
Yes, there is other Scripture that describes Christ as the “good shepherd”; However, we must read this passage in the context to which it was intended, and the audience to which received His words.
This conclusion becomes more obvious when we consider the point that Jesus makes: that Heaven rejoices when one sinner repents. That is the theme throughout this parable, along with that of the Lost Coin and Spendthrift Son. This third parable identifies the Pharisees and Scribes as the older brother, leaving a cliffhanger ending and inviting them into the celebration for the repentant sinner. They must decide if they will accept the invitation or not.
I hope this makes sense.
-TastyWallet
James
Right but read verse 7 which is the point of the whole story the Pharisees didn’t matter they weren’t the point the point was very clear that Jesus will come after us when we get lost
tastywallet
James,
Verse 7 is a comparison between the rejoicing over the one sinner who repents with the 99 righteous who did not repent. That is the antecedent of “in the same way”, not that the Father (or Jesus) is the Shepherd in this parable. Verse 7 itself is the antecedent of verse 6, which states “Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!”.
If we go back to verse 1, the reason why Jesus told these three parables is that the Pharisees and scribes grumbled, regarding Jesus, “This man receives sinners and eats with them”. That sets the context behind all three parables.
-TastyWallet
Dan
Piggy-backing again on TastyWallet’s observation; if we are to accept that verse 7 likens the shepherd to Jesus, should the verse not read, “I tell you that in the same way, that I will go in search of the single lost sinner and leave behind the 99 righteous who need no repentance.”?
My Bible doesn’t say this at all. People twist the parable into a pretzel to try to shoehorn Jesus into the role of the shepherd. I have no idea why they want to do this since, as I said above, the shepherd is careless in his shepherding activities. First he manages to lose track of the one sheep then leaves the rest to find the one. Not smart.
Keep in mind that the parable is really part 1a/b (the lost possessions), contrasted by part 2 (the father waiting for the spendthrift son). If Jesus is the shepherd who loses the sheep then we have to assume He is also the woman who loses the coin. But if that’s the case, why does Jesus up the ante about how frantic the woman is to find the lost coin? The panic-stricken searching for something she lost is not a picture of God’s character. Further, in part 1b of the parable, there is no parallel of “99 coins”. This omission is likely because the point of the parable is about the rejoicing in heaven over the repentance of the lost not the 99 (other than to drive home the point about how desperate the shepherd was to go out in search of the lost possession.)
The issue with parables in general is that they are not, strictly speaking, allegories. Not everything in the story is one-to-one with a real situation. Sure, there may be hidden meanings and takeaways and I can do that with these stories quite easily as long as I know who the players are.
– The shepherd/woman is/are careless – the Pharisees are probably careless.
– The shepherd/woman love material possessions – the Pharisees love material possessions
– The loss of the material possessions would cause a panic in the shepherd/woman/Pharisees
– The search for the lost possession would cause the Pharisees to make rash decisions in their search just like the shepherd who left the flock out in the open.
– The finding of the material possessions would result in joy in the Pharisees.
And so on. There might be a lot to read-into the story but again, parables don’t have to be read this way. They should ring true and certainly not be internally inconsistent, but to try to relate each element to something in the real world ends up being problematic.
We might also note that Jesus uses the phrase “righteous who need no repentance” which is really a side-ways dig at the Jewish leaders who imagined themselves as the “righteous who need no repentance”. So even here, while it might be easy to imagine the 99 are Christian believers (which is what Asbury asserts in his lyric) this may not be who is in view here, After all, we know that we all need to repent of our sins. There are no believers who “need no repentance”.
If the shepherd and the woman are Jesus then this is one messed up story because we end up with takeaways such as, Jesus is willing to leave us and forsakes and then climb every mountain to track down the lost. We’ll also start assuming that Jesus is reckless/thoughtless in that pursuit and that He doesn’t think things through before putting Himself on the line.
However, if the shepherd and the woman are, in fact, the assembled Pharisees, then the parable makes sense and we don’t end up blaspheming God by putting Jesus in the role of the careless shepherd. The Pharisees were, as we know, lovers of possessions. So Jesus uses livestock and money to drive home the point about how they would be desperate to find a possession they lost and then later how happy they would be to find it.
THAT is the point of the story.
They were materialistic so their frantic search and later happiness makes sense. If the shepherd and the woman are pictures of Jesus, who is NOT materialistic nor negligent in His care for us, then Jesus has apparently made a blunder in how He tells the story.
I would invite people to read the John 10 telling of the sheep and shepherd, the parable where Jesus explicitly likens himself to the Good Shepherd.
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
For some reason, people lift the title of Good Shepherd from this teaching and drop it into the other one – mistakenly so. In a way I don’t fully blame Asbury for not understanding this crucial point since many don’t. Still, I maintain that if you’re going to write a worship song, don’t twist Scripture to your own lyrical ends. It just ends up further perpetuating a misunderstanding amongst those singing the song.
tastywallet
Dan,
To be fair, I hadn’t thought about it until you brought it up. So, I studied the text out for myself, asking the Holy Spirit to guide me, and what you see is my current position on the text.
You have my thanks, Dan!
-TastyWallet
Dan
James,
As Tasty points out, Jesus SPECIFICALLY states that the role of the shepherd (and the woman who lost her coin) is played by the Pharisees. Note that there are three shepherd parables told by Jesus. Only in John 10 does Jesus state that HE is the shepherd in the story. In the other 2 he does not make this connection.
It is more accurate to call the character in Luke 15 the “careless shepherd”. He manages to “lose” one of his sheep (in contrast to Matthew 18 where the sheep [the immature believer] purposefully wanders away). Maybe the shepherd loses the one sheep through inattentiveness or negligence of some kind – Jesus doesn’t say. Only that it is the shepherd himself who manages to lose the sheep. The shepherd then compounds this error and abandons the rest of his flock, at risk in the open countryside, while he goes in frantic search of the sheep he lost track of. My take here is that the shepherd in this story IS reckless, in the proper dictionary sense. So this is the one part of the song Asbury gets right. What he gets completely wrong is that the shepherd isn’t Jesus. Asbury has essentially conflated the evil Pharisees with our Lord.
Jesus’ teaching makes a point to contrast the shepherd (and the woman) who carelessly lose the possession, to the prodigal’s father who ALLOWS his son to make his life choices and patiently waits for his return. The prodigal’s father does not go out in search of his son in the distant land. He continues about his business and when the son returns, he goes out joyously to meet him.
Had Asbury tried to write a song about GOD based on Luke 15 then he should have chosen the parable with the Father/God figure rather than the thoughtless shepherd/Pharisee figure. Of course, had he done that then it wouldn’t have made sense to name the song “Reckless Love”, nor could he have written lyrics claiming that God leaves believers at risk while he goes carelessly off trying to find the one unbeliever that He lost.
Remember, not all shepherds in Scripture are “good” and thus, not all can represent Jesus.
Dan
I would like to point out that nowhere in Scripture does it say that God leaves the 99 righteous at risk (recklessly) to pursue the lost.
The Luke 15 parable from which “Reckless Love” takes its cues, is not about Jesus as the Shepherd but the PHARISEES as the shepherd. Read the parable! Jesus tells us this plainly. So already the lyric of this song gets the actors wrong.
In Matthew 18 there is also a parable about a shepherd but this parable is about a shepherd who leaves his flock in the protected hills (not on the open country of the Luke parable) to purse the wayward believer – NOT the lost. This further solidifies the assumption that Asbury is using the Luke parable to underscore the recklessness of the shepherd in leaving the righteous believers alone in the wilderness to pursue the unbeliever.
The song is blasphemous for this reason since God promises Christians they will never be abandoned or forsaken.
tastywallet
Dan,
Thanks for posting this! Yes, the context is clear that the shepherd is the Pharisees, according to Luke 15:4, not the Heavenly Father. The takeaway from all three parables, the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the wealthy, spendthrift son (seriously, look up the word “prodigal”) is about rejoicing in heaven over repentance. The reaction of the Pharisees is to grumble and complain rather than to rejoice, prompting Jesus to tell these parables.
I updated my review and gave you credit.
-TastyWallet
Dan
To add to my comment, I find many parts of the lyric to be non-Biblical and therefore, should never be sung in a worship service.
– We know God would NEVER leave the righteous in the wilderness while pursuing the lost. To say He would is to call God a liar since he has promised to “never leave us nor forsake us”.
– We know that God does not “fight ’til I’m found” as stated in the song. If this were true then all would be saved. In fact, while God paid the ultimate price for us, our personal salvation is only manifested when WE turn to Him in acceptance and gratitude and for His sacrifice. The thematic undercurrent of the song is quite different than the Biblical picture of a Father who waits for the prodigal’s return.
– We know that Asbury is mistakenly aligning the Lost Sheep shepherd of Luke 15 with Jesus. This is widely and incorrectly assumed but just because many people think the shepherd in the story is Jesus doesn’t justify writing a worship song promoting this falsehood.
– Asbury has subsequently attempted to defend the lyric by saying:
A.) that “reckless” is just the way that the world sees God (ED: do they really?). If this is true then he is putting words into worship-goers mouths that is a sacrilege cooked up in the pagan mind. How about if we just start writing worship songs promoting every misconception that the world has about God?!
B.) that what he, Asbury, meant by “reckless” is that God “simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.” The HUGE issue with this is that he is describing the heresy of open theism. Open theism rejects God’s omniscience and claims that God doesn’t really know the outcome of our choices. As one critic said of this, “That is not describing reckless love. It is describing a being who has lost the attributes of an infinite God.”
So between the sacrilege of saying a.) God is reckless, b.) the blasphemy of calling God a liar, c.) the false teaching that God will do anything to track unbelievers down, and d.) the misinterpretation of the Lost Sheep parable, Asbury has done everyone a huge disservice.
tastywallet
Dan,
Thanks for the additional information! I appreciate your input and agree with everything stated. I re-wrote the entire review, with the exception of the Introduction.
-TastyWallet
Greg
I think Dan should be promoted to the rank of Berean. He nailed it!
Well done, TastyWallet, for your response.
tastywallet
Greg,
Agreed! He made a compelling case that I had not considered. Interesting how my initial rating started at 9/10 and has shifted into the red. I have so much to learn.
-TastyWallet
Steve Barhydt
Sorry guys but you are way off base here.
The three parables are ALL referring to Jesus not the Pharisees.
Jesus started by saying “What man among you?” to make the stories that He was about to tell more personal to them.
Add to that the fact that He tells the second parable from the standpoint of “a woman”. There were no women among the Pharisees!
If the Pharisees are anyone in this story they are the elder brother who stayed home and, yet, missed the blessings of the Father.
tastywallet
Steve,
Personal, yes; However, that is not an argument for Jesus as the Shepherd in the context of the first parable. It also doesn’t address my own argument.
As for the women argument, I am not sure how that relates to my conclusion on the first parable. Jesus starts it with “or what woman”, without using the personal pronoun “you” as He had done in the first.
As for the third, there is nothing obvious that connects the older brother to the Pharisees, though it does seem to me (as it does you) the most reasonable conclusion given the text.
-TastyWallet
Steve Barhydt
I have been a Christian for 46 years. I graduated valedictorian from a small private Bible college and have taught my way through most books of the Bible.
I have never, I repeat, never, heard this misinterpretation of Luke 15 saying the Shepherd is the Pharisees before today.
This faulty interpretation renders the three parables meaningless.
I maintain that Jesus uses the phrase “which man among you?” in a generic sense to include them in the story not to make the the “seeker of the lost items”
The complaint of the Pharisees is “Why to you eat with sinners?”
Jesus’ answer is, in essence, “That’s where the lost are.”
If it is the Father’s will in Matthew 18 is that someone (Jesus) go find the lost sheep why would Jesus mix up the players to the parable in Luke 15 and make the Pharisees the Shepherd.
In two of the three there is rejoicing in the natural realm when that which is lost is now found and greater rejoicing in Heaven over a lost sinner.
In the third, Jesus takes the Pharisees to task for their lack of rejoicing.
Dan
Hi Steve,
I don’t doubt your background or sincerity, only that you might consider that it is a misinterpretation on your part.
I would heartily direct you to this study by Bob Deffinbaugh over at Bible.org:
https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32
Deffinbaugh does a very good job of explaining the central reason for the story: addressing why the Pharisees were grumbling.
Deffinbaugh takes the issue head on when he writes:
“I believe the parable is not primarily intended as a picture of God’s seeking after lost men, but of men seeking after lost things. [snip] Earlier, it was my understanding that the first two parables described God’s heart for the lost. This cannot be the case, for several reasons.”
And then he goes on to explain.
For my part, I know that the shepherd is not Jesus simply because I can’t square God’s promise that He will never leave us nor forsake us, with a shepherd who carelessly leaves his flock in the open countryside. That never made sense to me.
Either:
1. The 99 are not believers at all as many assume.
2. The 99 ARE believers and God apparently sometimes abandons us to seek after the lost.
3. The flock is somehow not at risk in the open countryside.
4. The shepherd is not Jesus.
Of these, only the fourth makes sense.
I should also mention that people tend to think the sheep parables in Luke and Matthew are somehow parallel. Given the context of one talking about the unrepentant lost sinner while the other is about the weaker brother, the takeaways are entirely different.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth Steve, so I’ll ask, do you think the sheep in the Matthew 18 parable are the lost or are they Christians? If they are the lost (as you write in the post above), why does Jesus drop that idea into the middle of a discussion about the weaker Christian brother?
Matthew 18 is a famous chapter on how we relate to each other as believers so it makes sense that Jesus would purposefully say of the sheep in Matthew 18, “one of them wanders away” (which Christians can do) rather than “suppose one of you have a hundred sheep and lose one of them.” as He says in Luke 15.
The two parables relate in the sense that Jesus is using sheep metaphors. But the context, intent of the parables, who the players are, and what the response of the audience should be, are completely different. I understand why people conflate the two stories but upon closer examination, the situations and players are completely different.
tastywallet
Steve,
I appreciate that you have studied Scripture for far longer, with far more degrees to your name than I! You clearly outclass me in terms of academia, but let’s discuss the text in question.
I’m not sure how this conclusion of mine renders the three parables meaningless. I already explained the purpose of these three parables, but it seems we have a disagreement on that front.
I can see why you might say “which man among you?” is generic, though it does depend on the antecedent of “you”. I believe “you” is the Pharisees and scribes given Jesus’ response was directed towards them.
I agree with your general conclusion regarding Jesus’ response to “why do you eat with sinners”.
As for Matthew 18, this is not the same context as Luke 15, so I fail to see how this is relevant to the interpretation of Luke 15. The audience, according to Matthew 18:1, is the disciples of Jesus, not the Pharisees and Scribes.
My review states the Pharisees and Scribes as the shepherd’s identity in Matthew 18, which cannot be correct. So, I updated it.
-TastyWallet
Steve Barhydt
Since the purpose of this website is not for extended theological debates and I’m sure that we could trade the opinions of “authorities” back and forth until the “cows come home” (or in the case, the sheep :)), we will just have to agree to disagree.
I still love the website and, as I have said in other reviews, appreciate that you let each song stand on it’s own and refuse to get mired down in the Bethel/ Hillsong hatred that so many of your commentators are blinded by.
Love you guys in Christ,
Steve
tastywallet
Steve,
Thanks for taking the high road, I value your input in this discussion! I look forward to other commentary you provide that might help me improve my other reviews 🙂
I am glad that you still find my content valuable despite our theological disagreements. Also, thank you for showing appreciation for my approach to separate the questionable theology of Bethel/Hillong with their music. I can understand why some people may not financially support these artists (or worship with their music) due to questionable theology, but that does not automatically mean the lyrics are unbiblical.
-TastyWallet
Dan
Steve,
I’m afraid can’t agree with your assertion here since the text itself tells us that the shepherd is not Jesus. I won’t repeat what I’ve written elsewhere as proof but let me ask you this since elsewhere Jesus uses this same approach in other stories He tells.
For example in Matthew 7:7-12…
Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose one of you goes to his friend at midnight and says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, because a friend of mine has come to me on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him.’
And the one inside answers, ‘Do not bother me. My door is already shut and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up to give you anything.’
And He continues with the story. This is nearly the same format used in the lost sheep parable. Using your logic then the guy inside who says “don’t bother me” is apparently Jesus? If not, why not? Jesus uses nearly identical phraseology as in the lost sheep/coin story.
Jesus is doing the same thing here with His disciples that He does with the Pharisees in Luke 15. He is saying YOU GUYS would take these particular set of actions (e.g. reluctantly opening doors at midnight, etc.). If you, in your human capacity would do this just imagine how the Father would behave (or in the case of Luke 15, how Heaven would rejoice).
Yes, Jesus is making it personal but not allegorically. In neither Luke 15 nor in Matthew 7 are we to assume that it is Jesus who is the central character. Quite the opposite. Jesus is asking his listener to imagine THEMSELVES in these situations and in so doing, He is able to help them understand the larger picture.
It is also important to always note how Jesus starts out HIs parables. He will often make clear who the players are or what the relationship between concepts is.
For example, these are common distinctions:
1. “The Kingdom of Heaven is like…”
2. “There was a man that did X…”
3. “Who among you would not do X…”
The lost sheep parable falls into category 3 where Jesus is helping his listener conceptualize the larger issue by putting THEM, in all their fallibility, into the story.
I hope this makes sense.
Wea
Dan I respectfully disagree! In saying “which man of you” as part of the parable – he’s saying “which man of you would lose a sheep and…”. What he means is very direct – he’s saying what Shepherd would lose a sheep and not go after it? He’s making a point to real life shepherds to get his point across. To tug on their hearts and prove his point. The last verse in the parable explains best the meaning – “more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” the one lost sheep is a sinner! God made everyone in His image (Genesis) and God desires no man should perish (2 Peter). Therefore it’s Gods heart that the 1 lost sheep comes to him.
Linda anglin
I agree with this review of this song. Love the song! But take exception with reckless also! When I sing it, I replace reckless with relentless.. it fits in with the other lyrics.. and is much more accurate..imho..
Worship Leader CB
Should have written, “perfect” love of God. Maybe wouldn’t have sold as many copies as it the song did, BUT most Christian churches would be singing it.
tastywallet
Worship Leader,
They are already singing it, with the word “Reckless”! At least, mine is…
-TastyWallet
Steve Kuhn
My church sings it as written, and we LOVE it!!!
james kittrell
For all of you saying negative things about this song. Let me ask you this If you are married and your spouse starts to stray they arent happy anymore are you going to try everything in your power to get them back. How about your kids they have fallen into the trap of drugs and no matter what you do or how much you try to let them know you love them nothing changes. How long are you going to keep reaching out to them how long are you going to let them keep hurting you. you seeing them killing themselves. before finally you do what i am giving it to God i can’t do it but my God can. And he does everytime. How many times do you fall short everytime God forgives us for that addiction or for a foul mouth but we keep falling back into our fleshly ways. yet he never stops loving never stops caring he always comes back for the 1 he will leave the 99 everytime. Because they are so religious they have it figured out he will recklessly seek that 1 lost soul. you see we are spending to much time trying to analize the wording of this song instead of realizing the depth of the words.how many people strung out on drugs lying in wait of death hear this song and realize there is a God and he will Fight for me no matter the cost. Friends if thats not reckless i dont know what is. anyone listening to this song will realize the message being delivered and the message is straight from the bible i love this song. it shows just how far our God will go thats a message of hope and love.
Steve Kuhn
Great comments James, and all of the others who have relied to this song in a positive way. Right now, this is my favorite song! I love it, and I sing it to God all day long. All of this commotion over one word? Has anyone heard the term context? The first time I head “reckless” I didn’t come unhinged over the use of the word. Instead I thought to myself the writer had found a creative expression that shows just how far God will go to love us, and have us love him in return. What a sweet song. Enjoy it for what it is…
Andrew Lawrence
The fact of the matter is that those for the use of “Reckless” are trying to find ways for it to fit in and it becomes abstract. If you consider that this song is not just being sung by English natives but Europeans who like to worship in English and do not have the command of the “poetic” language, I find this very dangerous. For me when we sing something and do not mean it in worship it is taking God’s name in vain.
If there is any doubt, it is clear that it was an unfortunate usage of a word. I guess you can argue that God knows what we are thinking when we sing it, so from one person it is OK and the other it is an insult?
God’s love is unconditional, all encompassing but not reckless and for those that say, we are not calling God reckless, let us not forget that we refer to God as love “God is love”, therefore love is God and if love is reckless, you are calling God reckless
David Whitaker
I too have been disturbed by the word “Reckless” in this song. I do think the author has good intentions and I can see both sides of the argument, at least to a point. I am pleased to hear that many churches have substituted a different word and haven’t thrown the song completely to the wind. My concern is deeper that the word reckless however. I am concerned about the words in the Chorus “it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found” and the bridge wording “There’s no wall You won’t kick down, Lie You won’t tear down” that lends the impression that the LORD is some kind of “Iam Neeson” from the movie “Taken” in His effort to reach us. It is not consistent with God’s ways as recorded in the scripture. I think it is an effort to define God’s love for us in some sort of cultural context, but not an accurate context. Overall the song represents a mischaracterization of our LORD.
PastorJosh
As a pastor and worship leader, I have to say that I have no problem with the use of the word “reckless” in this context. Let’s take the definition given in this review of the song: “marked by lack of proper caution: careless of consequences.” Does God love us cautiously? Of course not! There is no caution about loving us because God’s very nature IS love! Does He love us regardless of consequences? Of course He does! Think about it…God is rejected by men all the time, yet He loves them anyways. God was betrayed by mankind in the garden, yet God loves anyways. That love even cost the life of His Son, Jesus…yet God loved anyways. Reckless seems a perfect description of God’s love to me. I’m not sure why people are so quick to harshly judge this song based on their impressions of what a word means rather than the actual dictionary definition of that word. Just my two cents.
David West
I think Mr. Asbury’s use of the word reckless was done with good intentions. Before reading his Facebook explanation I assumed that he we was not using the word “reckless” in its common sense.
However, after reading his Facebook explanation, I think he made the matter a little worse since he ascribes more words to God that generally carry negative connotations; e.g., ridiculous, bankrupted heaven. Heaven was never bankrupted when the Lord Jesus was manifested in the flesh on Earth; nothing in heaven was lost. The danger of being purposely loose with such words or ideas is that we may unintentionally develop an anthropomorphic definition or attribute of God that the Bible does not teach.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Asbury makes a very important statement; i.e., “To many practical adults, that’s a foolish concept.”. I think this should be the basis of his argument and the key to understanding the message that he is trying to convey.
See 1 Corinthians 13
18) NET© For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
21) NET© For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching.
23) NET© but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.
25) NET© For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Let me start with the last verse. Does God have any foolishness or weakness in His character? Certainly not! But to the world; i.e., outsiders, He “appears” foolish and weak.
I wish that Mr. Asbury would have said something to the effect that his use of the word “reckless” or “ridiculous” was like how the Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the word “foolish”; in the context of the things of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus; but from the perspective of the world. Accordingly, from the perspective of the world, God’s love truly is reckless.
We know that all words in all languages change over time. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years, we will ascribe God’s love, in the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ, as His reckless love – without any objection.
Anthony Jenkins
I see the recklessness of God in the parable of the sewer where the sewer broadcast the seed and ends up in the good soil in amongst the weeds and in the amongst the rocks it is the love of God that brings the gospel recklessly to the people of the Earth and gives them the choice of whether to follow Jesus or not this is where I see the recklessness of the love of God I see in my own dad who continue to recklessly love me when I was so far away and so rebellious that my natural dad was almost driven to distraction with my behaviour, maybe it’s only us the real sinners in the worldThat understand the recklessness of God
Kim
I was so sad to find several websites condemning this song. This is a powerful visual of God’s love for us and a great tune to go with it. This is the problem with the Church . . . . . . people calling themselves “Christians” get so hung up on their interpretation of a word or a song lyrics that they show their worst side to the public. There are several articles condemning the fact that Cory Asbury was led by the Holy Spirit to choose a word that would reach millions as a powerful visual tool of how much Jesus loves them. Who are you all to judge the power of the Holy Spirit reaching out to the world through a song?
The word reckless is the reason this song is so powerful. It reaches out to the world whether they know Jesus or not and let’s individuals know that they are going to be ok because there is an entity out there (God) that is willing to go to any lengths without regard to His public image for their heart. He loves people that much – enough to embarrass Himself, enough to disregard popular opinion about what He should do, enough to send His own Son to die with no guarantee that anyone would be changed because of that sacrifice. Sounds like the very definition of reckless to me. And what about the visual that gives people that are reckless in this world . . . . . . Reckless people of the world are safe with my God because He is boundless and overwhelming and reckless in the ways He will pursue them. He will meet them anywhere, anytime, in any circumstance. Praise God for recklessly pursuing the people of this world (including the naysayers) . . . . . . otherwise we would all be damned to eternal suffering.
tastywallet
Kim,
Not sure if you read the entire review, but I didn’t condemn the entire song. I gave it a fairly positive rating at 8/10 which, if we use the grading scale in school, amounts to a B.
While it is not my job to judge the power of the Holy Spirit, communication is an important subject to me. You may disagree with my view and that is your right; however, I take exception with the word “condemning” when you direct it at my article. Condemn means “to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation” according to Merriam-webster. Had I been condemning the song, I would have given it a much lower rating. Rather, I am uncomfortable with Cory’s usage of the word “reckless” and think a better word would communicate his idea better.
-TastyWallet
Tony Sabin
Actually I will say this in defense of both of you. The concern for the use of the word “reckless” could be misunderstood by just about anyone who hears the song. But in defense of using the word incorrectly I dont believe he was using it to describe God but to describe the “reckless abandonment” that God has for us in the love that He has shown for us, we don’t deserve His love what we deserve actually is death but Jesus showed that “reckless kind of Love” in abandoning everything to fulfill the Fathers Will. He poured Himself out by emptying Himself of everything but that everything was Love the same Love that Jesus knew that His Abba had for Him. As for the consequences there where none since God answers to No One except Himself.
Brandon
I disagree with your statements on God’s Reckless Love. The Bible talks about the Good Shepherd, and how he leaves the 99 sheep to go and find that 1 that wandered off. Think of it like this if I was babysitting 100 little kids at my house by myself, and 1 kids got out the door and ran away. If I left the 99 little children home alone while I went and searched for that 1 kid all night, don’t you think I’d have angry moms telling me I’m reckless? Why is The Good Shepherd any different. In this case, for the word “reckless” Cory Asbury is not defining God’s thoughts toward anyone else, it’s that God is selfless, and does not care who says what or what happens on His part, that He will reach you and love you no matter what. God’s Love is extravagant! If I was driving on the road, and started driving everywhere (in the grass, in the other lane, swerving all over the place) one might say that I am a reckless driver. Same rules apply. God’s Love is not afraid to go anywhere. In facts, it’s everywhere! It’s here, it’s there, it’s all over the place. Yes, God does know all. I’m not saying that God doesn’t think or already know what’s to come. I’m saying God’s Love will reach you no matter who you are or what you’ve done. If a well known serial killer came to your house and said, I really am sorry, please forgive me and let me in your house, would you? Uh, NO! But that’s the thing. The Bible says that God isn’t willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. God would let that Killer into his house, dispite the thought and action of it being reckless to let an apologetic serial killer into your house. The Bible says that Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. Our “dictionary definition” of reckless might tell us we’re not letting that killer in our house and that’s man looking on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart and says, he’s truly sorry and he’s broken. Cory Asbury wrote: “The recklessness of His love is seen most clearly in this – it gets Him hurt over and over. Make no mistake, our sin pains His heart. And “70 times 7” is a lot of times to have Your heart broken. Yet He opens up and allows us in every time. His love saw you when you hated Him – when all logic said, “They’ll reject me”, He said, “I don’t care if it kills me. I’m laying My heart on the line.” Which He, an almighty God, layed His life down for some filthy rotten sinners, down in the mirey clay. And if He gets hurt and it saddens Him when people reject Him, or Christians sin, that’s ok, because He still loves us and would still choose to die on the cross for us. All these Christians arguing over a song, and slandering a beautiful song is rediculous! I mean if your gonna preach about a song, Don’t slander Reckless Love, how about preach about the worldly music like “Shape of You” or “Rockstar!” I mean some of this junk in the world has so much filth and yet we don’t blow up until 1 Christian song has 1 dictionary definition that we disagree with. Let this be my prayer to you! God’s Love is more than any of us can comprehend! It is so extravagant! We will never fully understand God, and that’s alright! Focus on Christ, instead of a song, and maybe God will use the song to speak to you!
tastywallet
Thank you for your comments! I understand where you’re coming from; however, I think “slander” is too strong a word in reference to my commentary. Slander is a legal term, which means “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” I do not believe I have done that with my comments. I expressed my discomfort in using this particular word and knocked off a point or two as a result.
Yes, I do criticize the usage of this word, just like I criticize worldly music such as Hozier’s Take Me To Church. There’s no need to explain why a second time.
I do understand where Asbury is coming from; however, I did not express that within my post. I added a new sentence to the “message” section.
Finally, my aim and goal are to focus on Christ; However, this website exists for critical examination. I understand your concern and appreciate your expression of it.
Christian
Asbury citing the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke 15 as a scriptural reference point saying:
When I used the phrase, ‘the reckless love of God,’ when we say it, we’re not saying that God Himself is reckless, He’s not crazy. We are, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. But what I mean is this: He’s utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His own actions with regard to His own safety, comfort and well-being. … He doesn’t wonder what He’ll gain or lose by putting Himself on the line, He simply puts Himself out there on the off-chance that you and I might look back at Him and give Him that love in return. His love leaves the ninety nine to find the one every time and to many practical adults that’s a foolish concept. Well, what if He loses the ninety nine in finding the one, right? What if, finding that one lost sheep is and always will be supremely important?
– Cory Asbury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_Love_(song)
tastywallet
Christian,
Yes, I am well-aware of Asbury’s intent. I even linked to his Facebook post defending his position in section 1 of this review. Yet, as I said there, that doesn’t change my discomfort in his usage.
-TastyWallet
Dustin Thompson
The song doesn’t describe God as “reckless.” It is referring to the love of God. As in the examples in the verses of the shepherd leaving his flock of 99 to enter the dangerous wilderness without fear of consequence to find the one sheep. Or the father of the prodigal son who didn’t care how he was perceived and welcomed the son home after the son had shamed him deeply. The love of God is reckless in the sense that he will do anything to reach the lost without fear of consequence.
Ramona Griffith
You cannot separate God from His love. 1John 4:8 says that God is love. Perhaps the intent O of the lyric may be commended, but not the execution
William Dirksen
WORD ORIGIN AND HISTORY FOR RECKLESS. Adj. OLD ENGLISH RECCAN ” careless, thoughtless, heedless”, EARLIER reccileas. From rece,recce “care, heed”, from reccan ” to care” ( see reck (v))+-less. The same affixed form is in German ruchlos, DUTCH ROEKELOS ( WICKED. ROOT VERB RECK ( OLD ENGLISH reccan) is passing into obscurity.
,
tastywallet
Thanks for the lesson in etymology! We need to be careful not to commit the genetic fallacy as language evolves over time. Still, origins are worth examining when it comes to words.
John Demola
Without fear of consequence because there is no fear in God.
There are no negative consequences(which is what I presume you mean) because He is a God of order and is in control of His plan. Which by the way is kind of the opposite of reckless.
tony
the word i used was Exuded. def.: (of a person) display (an emotion or quality) strongly and openly.
“Mr. Thomas exuded friendship and goodwill”
synonyms: emanate, radiate.
to your point, “selfless” doesn’t always carry a consequence, where recklessness, can. For example, one who lives off 10% of their earnings, and gives away 90%, could be seen by the masses as, reckless. While others (and those who have lived on 10%) might consider say, I am trusting in God to provide….its all His anyway.
another example of “majoring in the minors” …as I believe God would see this song 100% complete worship of him, and not judge the creative license of the word chosen.
One could make the argument that God has a fair amount consequence for reckless acts in the bible . https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Reckless however, none of these examples are descriptive of Love, as in Coreys song. interestingly, here is commentary written 7 yrs before Corey wrote his piece….and a real life example of a church body showing reckless love. http://fpcrochester.org/2010/09/%E2%80%9Cthe-reckless-irresponsible-love-of-god%E2%80%9D-luke-15-1-10/
tastywallet
Ah ok, thank you for the clarification! I thought it was a spelling error. Learned a new word today!
Also, thank you for bringing both sides of the issue with much clarity and brevity than I could ever hope to express. Much appreciated!
Joe
I think we need to be careful when we try to creatively use words to describe the nature of God. I do not know the heart of the writer of this song, so I am compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I do not believe that the term reckless (as it is defined in any reputable dictionary) is a term that accurately represents the nature of God’s love. The God of the Bible is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Can we in our finite understanding of God, view some of the things he does as reckless? Sure. But that would be an attempt to hold God accountable to the standards of man. Who can understand the mind of God? (Romans 11:34) I simply believe that this is a questionable (at best), creative attempt to articulate the love of God.
tastywallet
Thanks for your feedback, Joe! Your caution is duly noted. I’ll pray on it and consider revision.
Alex
The Luke 15 context is pretty clear about who the shepherd is. Jesus was with the sinners (the black sheep) and we was there to seek them. The parable is basically, Jesus explaining His actions. It does not have to specifically say that He is the shepherd. When Jesus explained the sower parable to the apostles he expected that they would understand it!
Stephen
I think, while Jesus is the Good Shepherd, he is not the shepherd in the Luke 15 parable. First he starts with “what man of you, having an hundred sheep…”. It seems to me that the shepherd is the hearer. Further, Jesus is not tied to the human limitations of the shepherd described in the Luke 15 parable. Jesus does not have to leave the 99 to save 1. In fact he does not. Otherwise, he would not have promised to “never leave us or forsake us.”
Another challenge I have with the song is that the shepherd really isn’t the point of the parable. The point is the response of heaven to one being found/saved.
Describing God’s love as reckless is the least of this song’s problems for me.
Neal Cruco
Stephen,
I would argue that Jesus is the shepherd in this parable, but this song does not teach that He leaves believers to seek out sinners. Let’s look at the text:
“Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
3 So He told them this parable, saying, 4 “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” Luke 15:1-7 (NASB)
In this translation, I see the “what man among you” phrase that you base your interpretation off of. But what you do not seem to be accounting for is the context in which Jesus tells this parable. The Pharisees are complaining that Jesus seeks out sinners and even eats with them. Jesus responds by asking, essentially, “If you were a shepherd and one of your sheep went astray, would you not leave the other sheep and seek it out at any cost? In the same way, heaven rejoices more over the repentance of sinners than over those who do not need it.” He does the same in the parable of the lost coin- a woman who loses one of her coins would not be content with the ones she has left, but would seek out the lost one at any cost. And we see this also in Luke 14, when Jesus heals a man with dropsy (another term for edema). The Pharisees were watching Him closely, trying to find something that they could accuse Him of, and He openly heals the man, sends him away, and says essentially “If your son or ox fell into a well on the Sabbath, wouldn’t you pull him out at once?”. In all of these cases, Jesus uses a situation that the Pharisees would understand to explain His actions. The phrase “in the same way” (sometimes translated as “likewise” or “just so”), further supports this idea of Jesus likening the shepherd to Himself. He was using a situation that they understood (a shepherd chasing down a lost sheep at any cost) to explain why He sought company with sinners.
Well, if we take the shepherd to be Jesus, who is the ninety-nine? Other commenters have claimed that they represent believers, and that the song is claiming that God abandons the righteous to rescue sinners- clear blasphemy. This was something I struggled with for a long time. No explanation seemed sufficient. Then I had a flash of realization- we Christians are not the ninety-nine. We can’t be! Look at verse 7 again: “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” The ninety-nine are those who need no repentance. Yet Isaiah 53:6 says “All of us, like sheep, have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way.” How then can any of us fallen humans be part of the ninety-nine? It is impossible! The ninety-nine are righteous and need no repentance! The only ones who could fit that description are the angels- the two-thirds who have never forsaken Him!
Well, if we take the ninety-nine to be the angels, did God ever leave them? YES. Indeed He did. God incarnate left heaven and came down to earth seeking His wayward sheep- seeking to cross the gap between Him and them, even though they abandoned Him and plodded headlong into destruction. He chased us down. He fought til we were found. He laid down His very life for us wayward sheep.
That is the proper interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep, and that is what Asbury refers to when he says “leaves the ninety-nine”. Jesus is the shepherd. The ninety-nine are the angels- those who have never strayed, never forsaken Him. And the one? The one represents mankind. All of us, both Christians and non-Christians. We are the wayward sheep that God left heaven to find.
JM
Neal – This same discussion seems to go round-and-round on this thread. You do provide a compelling take on the Luke 15:1-7, but I wonder if at the end of the day it matters. The idea that God endangers those who are “saved” does seem to be what the author (Cory Asbury) had in mind – and in fact is one of the clearer examples of how God’s love is “reckless” (the verses don’t seem to depict reckless behavior).
You can read from the author here: https://m.facebook.com/coryasburymusic/posts/10158977378510171
“His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time. To many practical adults, that’s a foolish concept. “But what if he loses the ninety-nine in search of the one?” What if? Finding that one lost sheep is, and will always be, supremely important.”
Neal Cruco
JM,
Asbury’s intent is certainly worth noting, even if it is a little cryptic. I’d like to know if he seriously thinks God could lose the ninety-nine in search of the one. Still, even if Asbury does think this, it doesn’t matter to me. I judge songs on their own merits- on the lyrics that I’d actually be singing. Background information like this is useful and interesting, but not necessary. I’ve made my case for a biblical interpretation of this song’s controversial lines, and that’s the one I’ll be using when singing this song. Whether it’s the one that Asbury meant… well, I’m not so sure now. But as I said, that’s irrelevant to me. Just like how the false doctrine taught by Hillsong and Bethel doesn’t affect my opinion of their songs with biblically sound lyrics.
Regarding the use of the word “reckless”, Vince had some good words in his review of “Kings Kaleidoscope – Defender”:
“There are two sides to the debate:
1. Reckless is a term that means “(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action”. There was a lot of thought put into it! It was pre-planned (Revelation 13:8), not careless of consequences. More information can be found in Mike Winger’s YouTube video. (https://youtu.be/79rjZLjh-cI?t=557)
2. Reckless must be understood in its proper context. Jesus showed His love towards us without regard to His life or the consequences that followed: including the beatings, torture, and his death. More information can be found in John Piper’s response. (https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-we-sing-of-gods-reckless-love)
Piper said one other thing that applies to both views: “If you’re in a church that’s basically singing sound and helpful lyrics, and along comes a song with questionable words, then either stop singing if your conscience won’t let you sing, or put a meaning on the words that you are able to affirm.””
I happen to agree with the second point of view here. Despite the extreme emotional anguish that He experienced due to His impending death, Jesus submitted to His Father’s will and carried it out. He knew He was about to suffer a humiliating, torturous, excruciating death, but “because of the joy awaiting Him, He endured the cross, disregarding its shame”. (Hebrews 12:2, NLT) Since “reckless” can mean “without regard to the consequences of one’s actions”, and Jesus is God, it is quite appropriate to describe God’s love as reckless.
Dan
The reason the interpretation of the parable referenced by Asbury’s lyric makes a difference is that whether the 99 are “angels”, as Neal theorizes, or they are just sheep (material possessions) as I surmise is Jesus’ point, the issue comes down to what does *Asbury* thinks.
He obviously believes the 99 are neither literal sheep nor angels but rather, they represent believers. On this point he builds a heresy, which is to say that God is reckless because he leaves 99 believers to go in search of one lost soul – which is preposterous on its face. For to believe this would be to make God a liar in every instance where He says He would never leave us.
As I’ve stated before in this thread, either Asbury believes that God leaves believers in the wilderness and this is why he labels God as “reckless” (which is internally consistent with the rest of his lyric), or Scripture means what it says – that God would never do such a thing. If therefore, God doesn’t forsake the believer, then ergo, He is not reckless – thus the entire point of the song becomes nonsensical.
Isabele Moss
I think that this songs speaks about the intensity of Gods love. Reckless meaning he will go where no “man” will go. As people we tend to judge and believe that a person has to be a “certain way” and fit a “certain criteria” to be fit in the kingdom of God. I believe this song is simply expressing the fact that not matter where you are and how deep you are in your sin God will do everything he can to let you know that even in “this” he still loves you. We have to think about even ourselves when it comes to the love of our children. As many times as they fail the amount of love we have for them will not change and we will be “reckless” in making sure they get back on track. That is due to the unmerited love God has for us which is something he teaches very clearly in the bible. Jesus didn’t care about what the Pharisees’ thought about him not healing on the Sabbath or sitting with sinners. There is nothing or no one that can stand in the way of Gods love for us.
Tim T
I agree with everything you said of God’s Love for us except “reckless” is a word to me that does not fit your definition at all. Not even loosely. There are so many other words that would have been accurate to me. Nice tune, catchy, creative…overall praiseworthy. But reckless is unsettling to me.
tastywallet
Thank you for your feedback! I have been praying about it since Joe brought it up. I can no longer defend the term as Cory Asbury defined it. Therefore, I altered my review and updated the score.
James
I am preparing to lead a study on worship lyrics very similar to what you do on your site (stumbled on this while doing research for another song). I did my analysis of Reckless Love and there is so much commotion about the artists choice of words, and I really do not get what the big deal is, other then people love to argue and we have more legalistic people around then I could have imagined. The fact of the matter is that the heart of the message is all positive. The choice of one word does not take away from the intent. If we want to talk in terms of legality – then intent plays a major role in an analysis.
Lest we forget that we are referring to a bible that has undergone so many translation changes and sometimes there is just not the right words when translating so the translators did the best they could. Look at various modern usage of English words today and you will find it commonplace for a traditionally negative word to be used in a positive (sometimes overwhelmingly positive) manner.
Do a quick google search for “negative words used positively” and you can find some interesting developments in words most of us have no idea of the origin of.
I think the people who get worked up over little things like this should ask themselves if they think God would worry so much about the exact same topic (i.e. does this song bring displeasure or pleasure to God as we worship him through it?)
tastywallet
First, I think that it is awesome that you are leading a study on worship lyrics. It is not something I have ever seen before, so it should be quite the unique experience for your audience!
Second, I did take the time to examine the relevant post is on his Facebook page. I will include this in my post so that future readers can examine both sides and make up their own mind.
Third, I do agree that the heart of the message is positive; however, it also (in my humble opinion) sends the wrong message about God’s actions, as you have seen for yourself. I also agree that some people love to argue; however, in my case, it is about clear communication, not legalism.
Fourth, I do agree that in some cases, what was deemed a negative term has, through societal development, become transformed. “Cross” is a perfect example of this. I have not seen this for the word “reckless”. It still has a dictionary (and legal) definition that carries a negative connotation. Perhaps there is evidence that this term is leading in this direction, starting with Asbury’s usage. I haven’t seen it.
Fifth, my biggest concern regarding “Reckless” is clear communication. Asbury has a right to defend (as you do) his usage and why it communicates a positive message about God. I get where he’s coming from. I just don’t agree with it.
Finally, despite your disagreement regarding my commentary on the word “reckless” and this song’s glorification of God (or lack thereof), I still hope you found my post to be worthwhile and gave you some meat to chew on. Feel free to throw away the bones.
Charles Busada
I have been reading “Winds of Heaven, Stuff of Earth, a biography on Rich Mullins.
Here is some poetic language from Rich Mullins “The Love of God.”
There’s a wideness in God’s mercy
I cannot find in my own
And He keeps His fire burning
To melt this heart of stone
Keeps me aching with a yearning
Keeps me glad to have been caught
In the reckless raging fury ****************
That they call the love of God
Now I’ve seen no band of angels
But I’ve heard the soldiers’ songs
Love hangs over them like a banner
Love within them leads them on
To the battle on the journey
And it’s never gonna stop
Ever widening their mercies
And the fury of His love *********
Oh the love of God
And oh, the love of God
The love of God
Joy and sorrow are this ocean
And in their every ebb and flow
Now the Lord a door has opened
That all Hell could never close
Here I’m tested and made worthy
Tossed about but lifted up
In the reckless raging fury *******
That they call the love of God
So, for me, in the poetic content of Mullins song, “Reckless raging fury” has a place as it describes God’s love as relentless and not always comforting. Context is king.
So, it’s not necessarily “Reckless” that is the problem. Asbury’s usage of “Reckless” in the title is the problem. You cannot unpack the meaning of a word unless it is in context. Mullins gives a rich interpretative background for “Reckless” in his song. Asbury does not. So, for Asbury, our sentimentalities can get stepped on (believers can find the use of “Reckless” as well . . . . reckless in itself.
And finally, I notice how so many posts are concerned about the unbeliever’s understanding of God through a worship song. It just seems to me that this is not our main concern. Jesus said many things that offended unbelievers (eat my flesh, drink my blood). But our worship songs must be clear and understandable as we are speaking to one-another in Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs. They are primarily designed to inform the congregation, in unity, of the attributes and actions of God for the purpose of congregational worship. Just sayin.
Vince Wright
Charles,
Thanks for your comments! This poem is better, but I still think that reckless is a poor word choice to describe God’s love, regardless of its context. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on that front.
I understand if Jesus (or the Christian) says some offensive things to unbelievers, but there is a difference between speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and purposefully offending others. In all my reviews, none to my recollection chose the latter approach. Yet, my main concern is in the area of interpretation. I understand that some do not care what an unbeliever thinks about Christian music, but I care about miscommunication to unbelievers.
-Vince Wright
Diana
“I understand that some do not care what an unbeliever thinks about Christian music, but I care about miscommunication to unbelievers.”
-Vince Wright
I agree with your statement, Vince. Our focus should be on Jesus and telling others the gospel. It seems if the nature of God is misrepresented, then that would be another Christ. Just looking at the synonyms and antonyms for the word ‘reckless’ speaks volumes of how God’s attributes are misrepresented. I understand ‘poetic license’ in the attempt to convey an idea, but that idea still must be agreement with scripture. Reckless is an attribute of Satan not the true and living God.
~Peace
Vince Wright
Diana,
You’re the first in a long time to bring some new ideas into this discussion. Thank you for your compliment!
-Vince Wright
Jason
… or, spend two seconds realizing God is our mighty father, creator of all and to be feared, thus we should be VERY careful how we describe him and worship him with fitting reverence because he is AN ALL CONSUMING FIRE to be respected.
He is NOT reckless. Satan is reckless.
I am a father and if you called me reckless whether with good intentions or not I would tell you to STOP and would be enraged.
If you started telling people enmasse that was a reckless father as Corey has done I’d be extremely hurt.
Whatever the story behind the song, 99 per cent of people don’t know the explanation. They will all get a false perception of God that he acts without care and is a rash, rebellious devil-may-care God. NO. He is totally in control.
Sarah
Awesome reply!
Just think of it as this way… how happy are you when someone says to you, “wow you’re such a reckless driver”.. am sure that’s a super compliment for each of you who think God’s love is reckless.
Victor
Claro q si e desagrada a Dios que lo adoremoa en nuestros términos y no en los de Dios. Mira a Abel.. En la actualidad muchos cristianos argumentan que Dios nos entiende o nos comprende para justificar el introducir costumbres del mundo a la iglesia.. Claro que su palabra importa y el declarar sus atributos como lo enseña la biblia.. Sino seguimos rebajando a Dios a nuestro standard y eso no es correcto.
Edited by Vince Wright – Google translate:
Of course, it does displease God that we adore Him on our terms and not on God’s. Look at Abel .. Nowadays many Christians argue that God understands us or understands us to justify introducing the customs of the world to the church .. Of course his word matters and declaring his attributes as the bible teaches .. Otherwise we keep lowering God to our standard and that is not correct.
tony
one who give up their one and only son, in the hope that the world would accept that huge sacrifice in order for creation to come back to him, could be viewed as reckless. Very view of us would give of our own lives, or the unthinkable, our child, to save a loved one, let alone a complete stranger, or even further removed , a hater of God. And God has done just that: exuded the definition “careless of consequences” to the “T” which ultimately expresses the greatest selfless act ever, in my review.
tastywallet
I hear you; however, as other commenters have pointed out, we have a clear definition on the word “reckless”. Cory Asbury could have used a different term, say, selfless, to describe Christ’s sacrificial love.
You stated that God excluded the definition “careless of consequences”. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Derek
My thoughts exactly.
Brandon
Beautiful!!! I agree with you! This comment was such a blessing to me! @ Isabele Moss
John
You can’t change the definition of a word to fit a description. If intense was proper word, then it should have been used instead.
Denise
I personally believe that the song Reckless Love is speaking about God’s character. God has proven through the Old Testament and the New, time and time again, that there are times when He will change His mind. He has also proven time and time again through the Old and the New Testament that He will do what He desires to do how He desires to do it and that usually, will always be outside of the box we put Him in. I don’t believe the intentions in the song Reckless Love was to say that God is reckless in the abstract sense of the word. I have seen this post roll around and around but yet have not seen one song which I consider to have biggest atrocity of words, criticized! That song having the line You have never “failed me yet”. Does that mean that we are expecting Him to fail us at sometime? I highly doubt that is what the author intended when the song was given to him.I believe he was showing a pattern of consistency in God’s character! I believe that Corey’s way of thinking was more in the vein of this:reckless meaning:
1. doing something dangerous and not worrying about the risks and the possible results because God loves us so much that he will not concern himself with the consequences because he doesn’t have to, as He already knows them! There is no one more powerful than him when he decides to defend his children. When God says he is on our side that means all of Heaven comes to battle for us. I think many times we throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Just as in an art museum we can all come up with a different definition of the same picture and what it means to us ,God’s word is living and speaks to us in Revelation! I cannot speak for Corey! However, I do believe it is a glorious thing to have a Savior who is so powerful, so loving that he will stop at nothing to come looking 4 and defending his child ! The overwhelming never-ending what appears to the world as ‘reckless’ love of God!
Charles Busada
Denise,
I think that all would agree that God’s love toward us is (whatever word will convey the greatest possible love) as God is the greatest of all beings). The point is the word “reckless” (to me) is in itself reckless and unbecoming of God who knows all things and is all powerful to bring them about..
In 2013, NPR, of all media, addressed Keith and Kristyn Getty about the content of modern worship music.
https://www.npr.org/2013/07/08/200013769/modern-hymn-writers-aim-to-take-back-sunday
Keith Getty responded.
“I think it’s to the church’s poverty that the average worship song now has so few words, so little truth,” he says. “[It] is so focused on several commercial aspects of God, like the fact that he loves our praises.”
But it was Kristyn Getty who said *****”Some of the most popular music doesn’t show God the proper reverence.”*****
“There is an unhelpful, casual sense that comes with some of the more contemporary music,” she says. “It’s not how I would talk to God.”
BINGO
How are we to address God in our worship? We are standing on Holy Ground when we sing in worship. Certainly Jesus is a friend to sinners, but He is Lord and worthy to receive the best of our worship.
.
We have so many songs now that focus on the Love of God. It is if we have run out of adjectives and metaphors to describe Love. But Mr. Asbury has stepped over the line. We have left the biblical sphere of God’s love, with an eternal love that has focused it on His people and paid the price of redemption with His own blood in Christ. We now describe this eternal love as reckless.
We just cannot degrade God in His house, on His day, amongst His people. It’s not only sad but frightfully wrong to do.
So, what does “reckless” mean?
First, consider that, in language, words can have, many meanings; we decipher the meaning of a word by its context.
Also, consider that the meaning of a word can change over time. For example, “peruse” used to mean to “study something in a thoughtful way.” Now it means pretty much the opposite. Then “gay” or “awful”; those words now refer to something quite different than their older usage.
Consider Alicia Keys lyrics in 2007 on her song of the same name (sort of) “Wreckless Love”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB5Eej619ZE
Notice even the spelling of the word (she intentionally (?) misspelled ‘reckless’ to ‘wreckless’). That is because the connotation of “Reckless” “without caution” or “without first reconing about the consequences” (bad enough in itself), is now understood as “a wild and crazy action that is heading toward a wreck.” The word is now changing, or has already changed in meaning.
But now, as “reckless” is evolving into “wreckless” is this to be attributed to God?
I did not check into this, but I assume that the etymology of “reckless” is “lacking reckoning before action.” So the root word is “reckon” Is this God? Did not God think this through.
Yes he did, for Jesus tells us in parables or a man who first “counts the costs.” Luke 14. The verse deals with discipleship, but in the argument from the lesser to the greater, this would apply to Jesus as well.
Here are Alicia Keys lyrics.
******************************
Have that wreckless love
That crazy love
That off the wall won’t stop til I get enough kind of love
I need that love
So baby, let’s go
Well, enough.
Charles
Diana
“That song having the line You have never “failed me yet”. Does that mean that we are expecting Him to fail us at sometime?” -Denise
Try as you or anyone might, you cannot redefine the definition of a word to fit an emotional experience. Satan is, by definition, reckless, careless, dangerous.
God is patient, kind, forbearing, wonderful, counselor, thoughtful, wise, planning…
William Dirksen
A very beautiful Hymn called
” The Love Of God ” discribe’s the Love Of God with out using the word reckless . Being reckless can cause serious harm to others like a reckless drunk driver. Song writers should be very carful in words to discribe The Love Of God. I was warned in a dream in 2007 about watching out for words and the symnonyn of the words used in modern contemporary worship music . Also another serious warning after a 21 day Daniel fast. At that time a song writer used the word outrageous to discribe the Grace Of God, also heard the the word crazy to discribe the Love Of God . 2 Timothy 3 warns us of perilous times in the last days. Jesus said For every tree is known by his own fruit . St Luke cp 6:43
jamie
i think he is meaning Gods love is reckless to himself not to anyone else because he is leaving the 99 to go after the 1 who still may not want to be lead back sometimes we get so caught up on trivial things like the use of the word reckless instead of taking the overall meaning of the song God loved us so much he shows us reckless love when we recklessly abandon him he will move mountains he will come after us recklessly to bring us back at whatever cost even knowing we mat stray again.. i think the song is beautiful and i think there is no better word than reckless we could use words like selfless but we all know God is selfless reckless got our attention and made us listen..
Tam
Hey, I know this is an old comment, sorry. However, I also thought that Cory’s use of reckless was inappropriate, at first. I thought,”Well, God isn’t careless or haphazard.” But I had someone explain it to me in a way that blew me away. I believe that the form of reckless that Cory is trying to use, would be that of “unconcerned with the consequences” to Himself. He chose to love us with so much abandon and so fervently that He tossed the consequences to Himself aside and saved us. He loved us so much that He risked it all, He put His reputation on the line, He allowed His heart to be broken and He submitted Himself to painful, agonizing, brutal death. That’s how He is reckless.
McCel Christian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_Love_(song)
Steve
“When I used the phrase, ‘the reckless love of God,’ when we say it, we’re not saying that God Himself is reckless, He’s not crazy. We are, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. But what I mean is this: He’s utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His own actions with regard to His own safety, comfort and well-being. … He doesn’t wonder what He’ll gain or lose by putting Himself on the line, He simply puts Himself out there on the off-chance that you and I might look back at Him and give Him that love in return. His love leaves the ninety nine to find the one every time and to many practical adults that’s a foolish concept. Well, what if He loses the ninety nine in finding the one, right? What if, finding that one lost sheep is and always will be supremely important? – Cory Asbury”
Yes, if only we as Christ Followers had that same attitude for the lost…
Sage
Hey Steve, I think you should check this review out by Mike Winger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79rjZLjh-cI)
I personally use this song in our church still but this review by Mike made me think about the song some more. He specifically talks about the statement Cory Asbury released that you posted.
Thanks!
Timothy King
I am confused as to why a song that utilizes a word that is so contradictory to the description of God AND is so controversial deserves a score of 8/10?
tastywallet
Timothy,
I tried to be fair, balancing the rest of the lyrics, which are highly biblical, with this singular word that carries much weight in controversy. It got 8/10 due to the weight distribution (20/40/20/20) and rounding up.
Upon examination, I noticed that perhaps I scored section 4 too high. This should be 8/10, bringing the overall score down to 7.5/10. I updated it.
-TastyWallet
John Demola
When you say we need to be careful I assume you mean the writer. Unfortunately the writer knew exactly what he was doing. He knew the word would be controversial but chose it anyway in order to attract people to a catchy phrase. I think “we” need to be careful when we hear a song from one of these revenue generating machines. I came out of the inner workings of a mega church where everything they did had to make money. So I am sensitive to the issue and am still detoxing from that world.
Trini Quitoz
You stand correct. The first time I heard it bring sang by my church choir…the word reckless bothered me…for there is nothing that gets close to this disorderly adgetive as referring to God’s feelings of compassion in his determination to save a soul.
Whatever the composer intended…he should surrender to God, accept he used the most IMPROPER adjective and officially CHANGE it to the word PERFECT love of God.
It’s the one right thing to do!
Sheryl Curry
I had a problem with the word,”Reckless” the first time I heard this song. GOD is not reckless. Good intent, but we can’t use this song.