First, a couple of videos.
Here’s my take.
You all know the old saying, “If it looks like a duck, etc…it is a duck,” don’t you? When we see something that looks and acts like another something with which we are already very familiar, the most logical explanation for the similarity is to initially assume is that the two somethings are, in fact, alike. They don’t have to be exactly alike to be of the same something, just like a ball is a ball regardless of the size, texture, or chemical makeup. Even my 2 year-old granddaughter, based on her short life experience, is not wrong when she notices a spherical object, points, and yells out, “Ball!”
We carry with us information and definitions acquired through experience, along with developed presuppositions When we observe a buzzing factory, we assume it to be a buzzing factory based on what we already know from experience about building or making things. To describe the factory, then, as something other than what is observable and recognizable as a place of production would require one of two things: either the observer has never seen or had any concept of manufacturing and assembly, or that he is being intellectually dishonest.
One would have to have never tied a shoe, prepared a meal, or completed any task requiring a process to not recognize a factory for what it is. At the very least the observer should be able to recognize the industrial process as being similar to other processes with which he is already familiar: the kind when going step-by-step makes a thing. Therefore, to observe a factory in operation and then declare that the factory, even the whole process of manufacturing, including subcontracting and logistics, is nothing more than an illusion of design and a product of chance is to throw out rationality in favor of a presumed belief.
It amazes me how that one can learn more and more about the complexities (yes, even irreducible complexities) of the human cell and still maintain random chance and time created and honed everything, from the machines down to the software in a factory which purpose is to make a thing.
It is easy to simply claim there is no Designer or Creator behind the unfathomable complexities of human existence. All one needs is the presupposition that no matter what one encounters, it is NOT what it may appear to be. If we first presuppose there is no God, then what may appear to be the result of vision and design can be waved off as only an illusion, a false equation, or the projection of a preconceived delusion acting as a coping mechanism.
However, living in a modern, industrial world, I find it hard to understand how anyone with any amount of intelligence can maintain “natural selection,” copious amounts of time, and blind chance are the architects of anything, much less the preliminary mechanisms and processes which bring about its construction.
I actually work in an automobile manufacturing plant. I have witnessed the entire process of building a Volkswagen Atlas. Even more, I have participated with my own hands in the making of these vehicles. I have been involved in the logistics of securing parts of all kinds and placing even the smallest in precise positions for robots to weld. In order for one functioning vehicle to roll off the assembly line, the things that must take place in the right way at the right moment and in the right amount are just staggering. And we are only talking about a car, not the human body and each cell!
For just a moment, think about that 2025 VW Atlas with all the bells and whistles of a luxury SUV. Imagine it painted your favorite color as it is cranked and driven out the big bay doors toward the staging area where it will be shipped. Should you spend your $50,000 to buy one, you will expect it to perform at a certain level while maintaining its structural integrity. After all, the lives of your family and yourself will depend on it.
Now, imagine that SUV backing into the proving and detailing area once again. Then, imagine it backing up to the automated assembly line where it is once again placed on the moving floor. Keep reversing until the vehicle is completely disassembled, stripped of paint and sealer, even un-welded (if that was possible) and reduced to small stamped pieces of sheet metal that make up the body. Are we done? No.
Look around at all the bins full of sheet metal parts, plastic spacers, barrels of sealant, bolts, nuts, and even the box of tiny copper tips for one of the thousand-plus $200,000-dollar robots spot-welding 24/7 according to software monitored 4,000 miles away. How did all that get there? If left alone, would a VW Atlas once again roll out the door? Even in a billion years?
Even more, consider all the things that must take place in the process of manufacturing the individual components. For every piece of that vehicle (about 5,000) there is a company, a business plan, a CEO, workers, machines that must be maintained, and materials which must be ordered and stocked. And then there are the truck drivers and the forklift drivers and the mechanics who keep those machines running and those parts on schedule.
Parts must be made according to specific tolerances. Parts must be assembled in a certain way. People have to do their assigned duties with quality, safety, and integrity. Everything must go a certain way, or else the very integrity of the vehicle could be compromised. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is unplanned and left to chance when literal lives could be at stake.
How long would it take for a brand new Volkswagen to roll off the assembly line on its own? Any answer other than “never” would be absurd. And why is that? Because nothing in the observable world testifies to this being possible. From experience and observation we have acquired enough wisdom to determine two things: first, a car doesn’t design and build itself; and second, an expertly built and functioning vehicle must not be the result of design-less, random chance.
Therefore, it is not irrational, when we observe what appears to be design and purpose, to assume there was a Designer with a plan for how the thing would function. Everywhere else in creation and everyday life we observe the natural rhythms of cause and effect. When we see a jet flying in the sky above us, we take for granted the craft was designed and built in a factory, it’s going somewhere, and that people are on it. Even when a rock hits our windshield, we know something caused the rock to leave the pavement.
It’s only the one who cannot, no matter the evidence, no matter the logic, accept that there’s a Watchmaker in the history of the watch on the shore. He asserts there is no evidence for the Watchmaker; there is nothing about the Watchmaker that he’d like should he exist; that not enough jewels were in the movement to signal true intelligence; and that though it may look like a watch and function like a watch, we don’t know for sure what we think a watch is, or whether it is actually represented in the thing on the shore.
For all we know, the supposed watch somehow came from the depths by some means not yet discovered.
“All we can know for sure,” he would say, “is that there appears to be a thing on the shore with interesting similarities to other observable things, but whatever it is, it is because it is and that’s it. To entertain any other conclusions might lead to inconvenient truths, and we can’t go there.”
All I know is that even though I’m not a biologist, I’m pretty certain I can recognize a duck when I see it.
And a watch.
The Recovering Legalist 
Critique of ‘Hallelujah’ in Christmas Worship
As of this writing, there are only five days until Christmas. If I had only spoken out a few months ago, things might have been different today. But I didn’t say anything earlier because I didn’t want to hurt feelings or offend. I can only hope that by protesting now, something good can come of it.
You may recall that a few years ago I wrote a scathing critic of Dean Martin’s “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” I wasn’t the first to point out the song’s sexually abusive lyrics. Nevertheless, my article did get attention. This wasn’t surprising since the #metoo movement was going strong at the time.
But here we are in yet another Christmas season and what do we have? More offensive lyrics in Christmas songs. What makes it worse is that they are part of worship services. These services are meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, not a sexual conquest.
It seems that all one must do these days is include the word hallelujah in a song, no matter the context of the borrowed lyric or tune, and it’s sure to be a hit at your next Christmas cantata.
“Hallelujah”
Let me be clear. It is not my wish to trash Leonard Cohan’s famous, beloved and oft-covered “Hallelujah.” Why would I want to? My complaints would just fall on deaf ears. Since the 1984 release of Cohen’s “Hallelujah,” near universal praise has been given for its lyrical, poetic, and harmonic beauty. But I’m not a fan. I can’t stand the song – not because of the tune, but the message.
But as with many things, even though I’m not a fan, if it stays within the bounds of its intended secular audience, I’m content to let rotting dogs lie.
It’s only when the putrid scent of death begins to taint the fragrant incense of worship that I get offended. My gag reflexes tempt me to puke.
Unfortunately, as of late, I’ve had to keep a barf bag close by. It seems that more and more Christians have gone odor blind and cannot detect even the slightest stench. Everywhere I turn, Cohen’s agnostic and broken Hallelujah” is being incorporated into holy worship.
A Little Background
With just a little digging, I found that the first time “Hallelujah” became linked to Christmas was in 2010. Susan Boyle from Britain’s Got Talent included it on her Christmas album. It featured the original lyrics.
Then, early in December of 2012, Cloverton released the now popular Christmas version of “Hallelujah” which tells the story of Christ’s birth. Below is the first verse.
In 2017 the group Anthem Lights released “Hallelujah Medley,” a mashup of two classic Christian songs with “Hallelujah” woven throughout. The other two songs were “Hallelujah, What a Savior” and Michael W. Smith’s “Agnus Dei.”
This year I heard both the Cloverton and the Anthem Lights versions in the same church Christmas cantata. However, as an instrumentalist in that church, I couldn’t bring myself to accompany either one.
Giving Grace
But I want to extend grace. I don’t want to disparage anyone who sings these covers or re-writes of “Hallelujah.” Their intention might be to glorify God. They may also encourage others to praise Him. Even Paul was hesitant to condemn those who, out of jealously, added to his suffering, for even then the Gospel was being preached (see Philippians 1:15-18). That was the main thing.
I’m compelled to show grace, too, because others may genuinely see things differently. They may consider what is being done with “Hallelujah” as an act of sanctification. They might argue that the tunes of some of the greatest and most beloved hymns were once big hits in the pubs and ale houses. Therefore, incorporating the tune or some of the lyrics into Christmas music is no different than how we sing “Amazing Grace” to the traditional tune of “New Britain.”
And, if nothing else, I must be careful to offer a lot of grace because I’m not perfect. I’ve had a bad cold, recently, and lots of things irritate me more when I feel sick.
What Are the Issues?
So, what is the issue (or issues)? What is there to complain about this time? What makes me cringe? What makes me nauseous?
Issue 1: The Lyrics
To begin with, it all goes back to Leonard Cohen’s original “Hallelujah” and its meaning. You see, I like music, but I also try to understand the lyrics. Just because a song has a happy tune, that doesn’t mean it’s worth listening to. I try to feed my soul with good stuff, not garbage.
Compared to many songs, though, “Hallelujah” is downright tame. It’s not a vulgar, pornographic jingle celebrating wet body parts (e.g., Cardi B). But it isn’t religious, nor is it wholesome for all ages, either. Actually, it is a song that draws loosely from the lives of biblical characters to describe dysfunctional, sexually-involved relationships that seek consolation through mutual brokenness.
But as a Christian, what bothers me most is the way Cohan distorts and contorts the word hallelujah. It offends me that such an intrinsically holy word (made up of two Hebrew words, hālal and yâ, which means “praise the Lord”) is used to describe a sexual release in the second verse.
It may seem petty, but it also irritates me how Cohan (born a Jew, but a practicing Buddhist) not only mixes the stories of King David and Samson, but does so in a self-justifying, slanderous way. David needed proof for his faith? Whose throne got broken?
But who really cares about the verses of this song, right? I mean, all that people really care about are the melody and the haunting chorus that repeats the word erroneously attributed to a “baffled” king.
Hallelujah is the real money maker, after all.
Issue 2: The Fusion of the Holy and the Unholy
The other big issue I have is not only the willingness, but the ambivalence toward fusing holy, Christian works with unholy, secular, even blasphemous works in an attempt to be creative.
Here’s the thing. I can’t sing “Amazing Grace” without including the accompanying tune once connected to bar songs. However, when I or any other person hears “Amazing Grace,” the words of “New Britain” never enter our minds. The older song is totally disassociated from Newton’s “Amazing Grace” and the author of “New Britain” never gets any credit.
But “Hallelujah” is a different thing entirely. Whenever either the tune or the lyrics of “Hallelujah” are used in either a lyrical remake or a mashup with other Christian songs, some sort of attribution must be given to Leonard Cohan.
Issue 3: Ignorance is Blessed
I asked my wife for her thoughts on the rendition of Cloverton’s version of “Hallelujah” that our praise band did last week. Like everyone else, she thought it was beautiful. And from a purely musical perspective, even a worshipful one, it was moving.
But on the other hand, on hearing “It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor falls, the major lifts,” when does one wonder: “Why are the words of an agnostic Jewish Buddhist being used out of their context to praise the God and Savior he doesn’t even believe in?”
But that’s just it. Most people don’t know.
Most people aren’t aware of the source material. For that matter, most people never parse the lyrics to any of the songs they sing, even in church, and are usually content remaining ignorant, but blessed. Honestly, I can’t blame them. It’s easier that way.
And frankly, at least in this case, what you don’t know probably won’t hurt you, so worship away.
But I do know. That’s why I just had to say something.
Share this:
2 Comments
Filed under Christianity, Christmas, Church, music
Tagged as Christmas, Church music, commentary, critique, faith, God, Hallelujah, Jesus, Music, Theology