Oprah sings I surrender all with raised hands and tears?!

[Wannabee]

By the way, Rich, we don't sing this at our church for the very reasons you mentioned.

Sarah, the last line has a gnostic feel to it - sort of a nebulous feel-good spirity thing. The last part of the third line does as well. It is feelings focused, which is much of the problem. But hey, I rededicated myself 9 times to this song, so it must be good...

Actually, I did do that once. I was in tears, wanting more of Christ. But I didn't understand. I went forward and told the pastor that I didn't understand. I told him I wanted more. He presented me to the congregation as one who had rededicated his life. That was just before high school; a time period of my life that was no testimony of the wonders of Christ. Yes, I understand the dangers and abominations of easy-believism very well.

What are the words anyhow?

They're in my earlier post, and in Sarah's above.

 

[OPC'n]

Joe, I understand the precipice on which we can stand in regards to feelings. One shouldn't base their salvation on how one feels that day. However, I think we shouldn't ride the pendulum's swing either. Jonathan Edwards has a good book which you probably have already read called Religious Affections. I've gotten into a few chapters so far and he talks about fake feelings that should be avoided but also true feelings that shouldn't be avoided. I suppose it would depend on the person singing this song and not so much the song itself. It's a bit too sappy for me, but gnostic? I'm not sure I would agree.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What are the words anyhow?

All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.

Refrain

I surrender all, I surrender all,
All to Thee, my blessèd Savior,
I surrender all.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Humbly at His feet I bow,
Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
Take me, Jesus, take me now.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
Let me feel the Holy Spirit,
Truly know that Thou art mine.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to Thee;
Fill me with Thy love and power;
Let Thy blessing fall on me.

Refrain

All to Jesus I surrender;
Now I feel the sacred flame.
O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!

Sorry, I know you're talking to Wannabee, but I'm curious...where do you see Gnosticism? Also, I don't know the song or the author, but I thought he wrote that song as a believer and so he was just giving up things in his life that clutter it up. For example, I gave up movies and tv after being a Christian for some years. That sort of thing. Did he write to show conversion? I'll read it a few more times.

Sarah,

The primary issue with most Evangelical expression today is that it descends to the "inner life" of the believer. There is a focus on enthusiasm and devotion. There is a focus on the "heartfelt". It is common for people to talk about being "spiritual" and not religious.

If you read the lyrics of songs prior to to the revival periods, there is a focus on doctrine. Religious content of the lyrics focused on the work of Christ and a redounding of praise on the basis of His completed work.

Revivalism focused on measures to encourage the hearer to a point of decision. There is little in doctrinal content in the song above. There is simply a sort of romantic desire for the singer to "give himself over" and "feel God's presence."

Thus, the focus on religious worship shifts from the objective work of God and Christ's work and its vitality is measured in devotion or feelings.

Thus, when Bill Maher was criticizing Evangelicals as being irrational, a prominent Evangelical criticized back that his faith is "meaningful" to him and that it is wrong of Maher to criticize. In other words, there wasn't a criticism on the basis of historical facts but on the fact that Jesus "completes me."

Honestly, most people don't have a clue about the person and work of Christ but can get teared up singing the above song because it feeds the American religious desire to go to the "inner life".

I've often quipped that it's often like having romantic feelings for your wife but, when somebody asks you to tell them something about your wife, you answer: "Oh, I don't know anything about her, I just love her. In fact, if I knew too many facts about her then that would destroy the special relationship that I have because it would be "head knowledge" and not "heart knowledge." That's a surprise to any husband whose wives actually care when they forget birthdays or anniversaries or show no interest in understanding them.

It's more appropriate to call it all neo-Gnosticism as opposed the the 2nd & 3rd Century heresies that were much more developed but there are enough parallels in the depreciation of the value of objective Truth in worship that the name is appropriate.

My point to all of this is that it is not surprising that Oprah cries just like anybody else who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't really know who Jesus is but cries about their "love" for Him. It's the same reason why I had no idea, for about a dozen years, that my charismatic experience as a Roman Catholic and charismatic experiences as an "Evangelical" didn't translate to the fact that the two were diametrically opposed on doctrine. To me, I assumed the Reformation occured as a result of enthusiasm - Martin Luther came to encourage people to be "on fire" for Jesus again is what I supposed. It was a breath of fresh air to get away from the "inner life" and see the Gospel once for all and all those illusions disappeared.

 

[Wannabee]

Religious Affections is an excellent book. Of course, one could take a short cut and listen to a few Piper sermons instead. Both Piper and Edwards helped me to get a balance on this issue. Hopefully it's a good balance.

What Rich is addressing is emotionalism - a manipulative appeal to the emotions. All preachers appeal to emotions. But it must be because they are burdened with their own depravity in the light of God's glory as revealed in creation and Scripture. This is what Isaiah to an end of himself, "Woe is me, for I am undone!" The manipulator focuses on results. The man of God focuses on faithfulness.

 

[OPC'n]

Thanks, Rich. I didn't see this line before (I read too quickly sometimes) "Now I feel the sacred flame". That's a bit odd. Is that the line of which you and Joe speak? That one is a little freaky. What is the sacred flame suppose to be I wonder. Ok, trash the song!

-----Added 1/14/2009 at 10:08:15 EST-----

Exactly, Joe. That's the emotion of which I speak. Maybe I read some of what I feel for God into his song and gave it more than I should have. I'll just blame you for that one though!

 

[PresbyDane]

All the socalled "stars" have no problem just throwing Jesus in with "the rest" money, fame etc.
He wants to be the only one, and that they can not do.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

along with Faith Hill on her show....

YouTube - Faith Hill - I Surrender All

What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)

 

[Rocketeer]

What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)

What are you suggesting - that any of the things you mention would have been condoned by the puritans?

 

[Rich Koster]

Oprah is a syncretist further mixing up the mixed up.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)

What are you suggesting - that any of the things you mention would have been condoned by the puritans?

non seq. I am confused by your answer.

 

[GTMOPC]

Oprah makes me sick.

My mother watches Oprah almost everyday in spite of the fact that her 'religion' is heretical and anti-Christian. Not to mention my mother also thinks Joel Osteen is merely a "motivational speaker' even though he calls himself a pastor and has a church. My mom will become angry and standoffish when confronted with and negative attitude or assessment of either of these characters!

So Oprah is Christian but not in a traditional orthodox sense and Osteen is a pastor just not in a Christian sense!?

Pray for my mother (who rests on Christ's finished work for salvation) and others (who may be saved b faith also)who are being deceived by this worlds pluralist/syncretist religion.

 

[Curt]

The only way that Oprah or anyone can believe that the different religions are all valid pathways, is to believe that God has a "schizoid" split nature and personality.

Isn't that called dispensationalism?

 

[Wannabee]

The only way that Oprah or anyone can believe that the different religions are all valid pathways, is to believe that God has a "schizoid" split nature and personality.

Isn't that called dispensationalism?

Sigh...

 

[OPC'n]

The only way that Oprah or anyone can believe that the different religions are all valid pathways, is to believe that God has a "schizoid" split nature and personality.

Isn't that called dispensationalism?

Sigh...

BTW, I'm not sure why that quote has my name on it....I didn't say it.

 

[Rocketeer]

What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)

What are you suggesting - that any of the things you mention would have been condoned by the puritans?

non seq. I am confused by your answer.

I do not think a Puritan would have condoned singing praises to the Lord with one's mind wandering off - are you then sincerely praising God? As for cosmetics, if you apply for a job wearing cosmetics on the school where I work, you will not be considered for hiring, even when there are three positions open, simply because you do not conform to the identity of the school (this has happened). I think the Puritans would have had similar concerns, especially considering what Peter says on the issue of women adorning themselves:

1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

(Emphasis mine. Mind you, I am not saying she should dress like a scarecrow - so don't go there.)

Lastly, why is a non-Christian singing Handel's Hallelujah? He certainly does not mean what he is singing, he is not praising the Lord. Think by yourself, how did the Lord deal with flattery? He certainly does not praise the flatterer. Or is the singer not flattering? Is he doing it because it is his job? Is God then a way to make a living? How is that not taking the Lord's name in vain?

So again, why would the Puritans, who were seven times our betters, condone, let alone praise such conduct? There is nothing that is good or noble or honorable or even necessary in any of the examples you mention, and there is a whole lot against it.