Photo credit: Tyler Milligan @TyMill6
A student recently knocked on my door, walked into my office, and sat down on my couch. He leaned forward and asked, “Is God’s love reckless?”
He was inquiring about a new song from Bethel Music called “Reckless Love,” a song that I had not yet heard.
I was impressed that he was thinking about what he was singing, even though his concern with the song no doubt ruined his worship experience the first time he heard it. Buy, hey. Our concern in worship shouldn’t only be about having a good time and feeling good. You don’t need worship to do that. From what I hear, you can do that with drugs.
The chorus of the song in question speaks of the “overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God.”
I searched for the meaning of “reckless,” and Almighty Google tells me that “reckless” describes someone who acts “without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.”
I tried the more respectable Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, and, similarly, it defines reckless as “marked by lack of proper caution: careless of consequences” and even as “irresponsible.”
I don’t think too many Christians would like to say that God is “careless” or that God’s love doesn’t “care about consequences.” Instead, God loves us with the clear and thoughtful intention “that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
Some people try to make a distinction between saying “God’s love” is reckless vs. saying “God” is reckless. But that is a meaningless distinction. Theologians rightly suggest that you can’t separate God from his attributes. Or to use more biblical language, “God is love.”
The Reckless Shepherd Who Leaves the 99?
The song “Reckless Love” alludes to a parable that Jesus tells about a shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep to search for one lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14 and Luke 15:4-7). And when I went searching for other places that Christian’s refer to God’s love as reckless, I found a book that draws on the same parable to support its conclusion.
The book’s author suggests that the shepherd is reckless in the sense that the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep “open to wolf attacks, wandering bears, and robbers.”
This is incorrect. As New Testament scholar Craig Keener observes of this parable, “A shepherd could leave his own flock with the other shepherds with whom he worked, who would be watching over their own flocks.”[1]
No carelessness for this shepherd. At least not in this case.
Reckless Christianize
Even though I’m not so poetic myself, I try to be generous toward poetic language in Christian songs. So it doesn’t really irk me so much when Christians want to set things on fire—whether it’s our hearts, the church, or our love.
So, I did some more searching. And I also asked some friends who are more into poetry than I am.
Apparently “reckless” has entered Christian vocabulary more than I realized.
I found another book. This one is called The Reckless Love of God. For this author, it appears that “reckless” just means “passionate” given his subtitle: Experiencing the Personal, Passionate Heart of the Gospel.
For some other people I talked too, “reckless love” simply meant “extravagant love.”
So, I figure “reckless love” is probably just Christianeze.
I’m guessing (I do admit) that non-Christians would probably never use the word “reckless” this way. Outside of Christian circles, I can’t think of any way that a person would use “reckless” without it having negative connotations. Consider
- “Reckless driving.”
- “Spending money recklessly.”
Reckless Heresy?
I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is heresy to refer to God’s love as reckless. To be charitable, whenever someone says something that sounds heretical, I always want to ask, “what do they really mean?”
So, for example, if someone describes the Trinity by saying that God is three substances, I probably (…probably) won’t consider them a heretic, because they are trying to express the correct theological intuition that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now, there are some true heretics out there (I’ve taught some of them ;). But I doubt that the author of the song “Reckless Love” is a heretic because I don’t think the theological intuition behind his use of the word “reckless” is heretical.
From the song, I gather that the author simply means that God’s love “chases me down” and “fights ’til I’m found.” And God’s love will climb mountains, kick down walls, and tear down lies, to come after us.
I think the author meant that God’s love is relentless. But “relentless” has three syllables, not two, so it wouldn’t have fit so well in the song. “Passionate” also has three syllables
So, what should we do? I see no need to completely abandon singing an otherwise perfectly good song. That might be reckless.
At my church I noticed that we sing another song from Bethel Music called “Forever.” It also speaks of God’s “reckless love,” but when we sing the song, we sing about God’s “perfect love” instead. (I’ve noticed that most places the song lyrics are found online only say “perfect love.”)
So, my suggestion is to sing of God’s “perfect love” instead of “reckless love.” Or, perhaps even better, for the context of the song in question, we could sing of the “steadfast love” of God (it even has two syllables!).
However, I’m not sure we can change the title of the song on the screen. Hmm…
Perhaps I have missed something. That’s why I first went around and asked some of my friends what they thought.
Question: Have I overlooked something? Is God’s love reckless in a way that I might be missing? Leave a comment below by clicking here.
Get Your FREE PDF
→ Click here to get your FREE PDF called, “Theology in Worship and Music: Please Think About What we Sing.”
Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit (forthcoming) as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.
[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1993), 93.
Hi Andrew. Enjoy reading your posts. Today, it seems, we have become rather reckless in handling the truths of the Gospel. I am, personally, disheartened at how we have sought to dumb down and romanticize Christ and God’s hard work to redeem us. Instead of inspiring awe and thanksgiving, we seem to have created a ‘great guy’ who would do anything for us – redemption be damned. We have replaced the reality of the awfulness of sin, what it cost to redeem us to God and a correct attitude of worship and fear, with the feel good jargon of an intense and passionate love affair that has little to do with communion, relationship or understanding the gulf between God and Man that could only be bridged through the intentional, difficult work of Christ on Calvary that was begun when He decided to create mankind and that will not be fully complete in us until we stand before Him in Glory.
Thanks for sharing.
Your comment is well put and powerfully true.
amazing comment which I fully concur with. So true His sacrifice was immense and we trivialize it.
Where in the lyrics by Cory Ashbury has he “sought to dumb down and romantize Christ and God’s hard work to redeem us”? Nowhere does he speak of a “great guy” who would do anything for us. That is completely your assumption. I see a man putting a (maybe his) testimony to song. Maybe if he would have used “neverending” instead of “reckless” we would not be having this debate. In actual fact, none of our worded accolades we have for God are complete on this side of heaven, but they are received by nonetheless by Christ in a heart of worship. I particularly like the part where he says “I couldn’t earn it. I don’t deserve it, still You give yourself away.” Doesn’t this highlight God’s hard work to redeem us? No romanticizing Christ there! I seen reverent thankfulness instead.
I agree. Are we all so “holy” that we cannot understand a sinner’s cry of thanksgiving in this song? I find it highly hypocritical and almost disingenuous the way people try to deconstruct the very response that Jesus was looking for in his parable about leaving the 99 sheep to find the one. At once, he is saying it is a normal thing for a good shepherd to do, while at the same time evoking in the hearer (the one lost sheep, if you will) a sense of great joy and relief that the shepherd would put aside everything to come to rescue them. Isn’t this what every good parent tries to instill in their child — a sense that they are safe because mom and dad would do anything to keep them that way? No, the word reckless here is not inappropriate. “Reckless” can also be a positive…bold, determined, and fearless. Think Jon Snow attacking a whole army in order to save his brother . How’s that for an anthropomorphic take?
@Big
I think most people here would agree with your assessment that the song is expressing a genuine thanksgiving, which is, of course appropriate. The disagreement seems to be primarily over the word “reckless”–how it should be interpreted and how the song’s author used it. Aside from the latter, personally, I wouldn’t consider reckless as having a positive meaning, like “bold” or “fearless.”
Try to put yourself in the shoes of those who don’t like the word “reckless” for a second. Would you be comfortable with saying God is “negligent” or “rash”? I would guess not. And it doesn’t seem fair for one to expect others to sing a song they are uncomfortable with.
For the most part, both sides of this debate are aiming at authentic worship they feel is honoring to God.
If you don’t care for the use of reckless, just don’t listen to the song. I mean honestly. If an atheist was reading this crap they’d have a field day with the absolute futility of it. The song is beautiful and it’s anointed as the Holy Spirit of Almighty God Himself has hit me and over taken me when I’ve worshiped Him through it, so if you have a problem with the use of the word, just find another song to use, and keep it to yourself rather than criticizing a beautiful song sung to the glory of the Lord. It’s very disrespectful and very much gives off the feel of someone “holier than thou”. Ridiculousness. You know what? God’s Love is reckless. It’s reckless to us. Jesus dying on the cross for our sins when we cared nothing for Him and offered Him up in joy? Loving us and forgiving us even when we continuously fall? That’s a reckless love, I’m sorry. It is. Any human who loves unconditionally in such a way is loving unconditionally. We break God’s heart on the daily and He loves us still. That is reckless. It makes God no less perfect yet to love us who do not deserve it. It’s reckless. We don’t deserve it. Why would He go through the pain again and again and continue to love us when we curse Him and deny Him yet He continues to reach out, all the more. It’s reckless. Yet He is God. He loves us, though most of His creation denies Him and will go to Hell, but He does not push us away, He loves us. Unconditionally. Never ending. He loves us. His love is reckless, and that’s what makes it so beautiful.
Clearly and well discerned and explained. Thanks Jonathon, fully agree.
This is beautifully stated and profoundly true! A perfect summation of the state of the attractional “church” of America. If one cares to study the scriptures both old and new they will see the myriad of warnings against such practices. From the Israelites to the 7 churches of the Revelation, we see how people get worship wrong again and again. Do not fall into the trap of deception. We must worship God is Spirit and truth and the only way to do that is with a reverent fear of the Lord and a devotion to the 4 marks of a christian: the word, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer (Acts 2:42).
If God is who He is, then His love is not reckless!
Great blog, Andrew — as usual! I agree that reckless here is not following the dictionary definition, but is Christianese, as you state. Best to not use trendy redefinition (although all words tend to change meaning over time). But in this case it may also lead to students attempting to imitate God (which we want) in being unwisely reckless in decisions and actions (which we don’t want). Passion, yes, reckless, no. 🙂
Indeed. If God is “irresponsible” or “reckless” in leaving the 99, we might think that is how we are to love others.
Someone pointed me to Cory Asbury’s explanation of what he means by reckless. He states, “What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. … His love doesn’t consider Himself first. His love isn’t selfish or self-serving. He doesn’t wonder what He’ll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return. … The recklessness of His love is seen most clearly in this – it gets Him hurt over and over.”
He needs to qualify how he uses the word quite a bit, in my opinion, simply because he is using it in a more restricted sense than its normal usage: “It doesn’t mean what the word normally means.” From what I read in his explanation, it seems overall he is trying to say God isn’t selfish or self-centered.
But reckless doesn’t mean “unselfish.” So… I still think he could have been more precise in his use of English, even if he’s making great points in his song.
Here is his explanation: https://www.facebook.com/coryasburymusic/posts/10158977378510171.
In all honesty, the explanation falls short of giving any level of confidence to the song. As you wrote earlier, we often need to look at the individual/organization expressing something Unfortunately there Re too many things coming from Bethel that raises concern.
God in His pursuit of us is not reckless, He is not unconcerned about the consequences or hurt. He knows both the consequences and hurt and makes a calculated decision to pursue us in spite of the hurt on order the achieve the consequence that He desires.
When one sites back and reads the lyrics to this song, there is no other perspective to walk away with then it is more about the individual and what is in God’s hand than it is about God Himself. This certainly makes it suspect as a worship song.
I think we are wildly overthinking here? As your brother in Christ, who is not diminishing or demeaning God’s character in any way (instead, this song has brought thousands of people to see God’s character clearer– a God who is MADLY in love with us and utterly unconcerned about how foolish His love may look). I can understand if this song was implying something negative about God’s character, but it’s not! It seems nitpicky, like we’re trying to pick a fight with a talented man who wanted to bring people closer to God. No one is running around now thinking God is reckless, but instead with a clearer picture of how crazy the love the Lord has for them is.
I would say we should we focus on stopping real false teachers and trying to encourage the church in ways we actually struggle as a people, not worrying about a word in a song! Just my two-cents.
No where in scripture is God’s love defined as reckless. The only place any of us get a clear, right view of God is through His Word. If scripture does not define God’s love as reckless, then the view people are getting through this song is not a clear view of God. It is a distorted, worldly view. All things must be compared to scripture.
If Eve were more concerned in the garden with a word or two … oh where could humanity be? And no (if one might suspect) I am in no way attempting to equate Mr. Asbury with the serpent. But we (Christians) might be well served to remember that a lie is most dangerous when it is so close to the truth.
If God is “MADLY in love with us,” the implication is that he is insane.
Heresy.
Right?
Or is “madly in love” okay but “reckless love” is not?
I have a pin. I wonder how many angels can dance on it?
@ Fred- I agree it isn’t heresy. But I actually think the word reckless is used a little more literally here than some would claim.
I understand that the song’s use of “reckless” *could* be “poetic.” But when it suggests that God “recklessly” leaves the 99, isn’t the song using the word “reckless” literally? And isn’t that problematic?
Either way, I do recognize that most people who like the song aren’t thinking about God in a heretical way.
Good work. “What I mean is” a little dangerous if we have to redefine words for our own purpose. JMHO
The composer of Bethel’s version of Reckless Love, Cory Asbury, performs the official version on You Tube along with an explanation behind his writing the song. I do not doubt the sincerity of Corry; and the music has a charm that obviously appeals to his youthful audience, and over 500 people commented that the music and lyrics are inspiring and encouraging in their walks of faith. However; the use of reckless, in my opinion, is a poor choice for an adjective to describe the sacrificial love of Jesus. A cursory search of the internet would have shown that the expression is popular in secular music and literature to describe erotic experiences. A good summary of how the expression is used by popular heavy metal musicians can be found on Amazon.ca. Perhaps I’m just an old geezer trying to protect my sheltered past; but, there is still enough holiness in me that I flinch whenever I hear unflattering descriptions of the attributes of Jesus. Fear not Cory Asbury fans, he is a very talented and Spirit inspired musician and I would gladly attend one of his concerts
Thanks for sharing.
Great answer Andrew, I have written a song, or two that may have not fitted so well for lyrics. However, my intentions and heart was in the right place, In expressing my love to him. I was attempting to tell a story of who,what he has done for me. Thanks for sharing . Enjoying your posts. Brenda
Indeed, sometimes the hearts of those who use words imprecisely can be more pure than the hearts of those who criticize them. Keep your heart in the right place!
Amen!
hi Brenda that is really nice
Bible says “God is LOVE”, not that He has LOVE but that He IS LOVE. Love is the very core and essence of who God is. Love is the very NATURE of God. To say that God’s Love is reckless is the same thing as to call God “reckless”. This is blasphemy and insult to God, does not matter how anyone calls it or what spin they put on it. God is NOT RECKLESS! Description of “Reckless” fits only one person, and his name Lucifer/Devil/Deceiver!
About parable of 99 that everybody keeps tripping over and over, by quoting over and over again… Rom.3:23 “for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Guess what? God did not leave 99 to find one! ALL of us fallen short, ALL of us have SINNED, ALL of us were in the darkness, ALL of us were enemies and hostile against God, ALL deserve punishment due, ALL… every single of us “there is no righteous not even one” Rom.3:10
Yeah, the Bible also says that God loves. It’s not either/or. He is love, but he also lvoes.
Yeah, the Bible also says that God loves. He is love and he loves. It’s not either/or.
Hi, I think a lot of people take the word “reckless” and stretch the meaning to their definition, which I think is pretty sinful. It’s the same as saying a man is a woman because of feelings. Thank you for your take on this song. Hopefully it reaches out to others and creates a conversation with others who are not willing to listen to the other side.
wow!! all of you biblical scholars must just be totally perfect! for those of us who are just normal average people struggling through life and trying to grow in our faith and understanding of God it is songs like these that help us. songs like these that save us and inspire us to read the bible and pray and know god on an even deeper level. this song has made a difference in so many people’s lives and have made them feel god’s love when perhaps they felt alone and lost. On the other hand it is biblical scholars like all of you on this page that over analyze and miss the message and scrutinize and judge others harshly so much so that it makes me and most everyday people not want to belong to a church or ever meet people like you. very disappointing…this band is trying to reach people and share god’s message and god’s love and all you can do is tear their efforts down. apparently all your biblical studies and degrees have made you all so holy that you now think its ok to sit in judgement of others….who made all of you god?? step back, look in the mirror and use all that wonderful education to do good not evil. I stumbled on this site to find out what the lyric “leaving the ninety-nine” referred to but never imagined in doing so I would come across all of you so called christians tearing the song apart. I have a daughter graduating high school soon who has grown so much in her faith these last 4years and is greatly moved by christian music and songs like this. She feels that God is calling her to ministry and has been accepted at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago in the fall and plans to major in youth ministry. Reaching her generation and spreading the word of God and God’s love is so important in today’s world. She will be taking many many bible classes during her time at Moody but I pray that she never ends up feeling so superior in her biblical knowledge that she treats and judges others they way all of you are doing. step back and look at the big picture….this song whether it is biblically correct or not is bringing people to God and all of you are doing the exact opposite. reflect on that.
Hi Katie, I recommend you purchase the following book for your daughter. The author cautions anyone who is studying the Bible and theology about not becoming arrogant in their knowledge. I use it with my theology students. https://www.amazon.com/Little-Exercise-Young-Theologians/dp/0802874150/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524626636&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=thielike+helmut+little+exercise
Wishing you and your daughter well,
Andrew
Katie,
While I can agree with some of the sentiment in your post, the direction it took at the end is concerning. I agree that the band is trying to share God’s love. But God’s revelation has been given to us so that we can know Him and worship Him rightly. This includes saying right things when we sing about Him. And I think you actually agree with this point.
For instance, consider the following statements that I’ve made up (and, yes, they are intentionally hyperbolic):
“God can only save white men in their 40’s.”
“God isn’t sovereign over the affairs of men.”
Now, hopefully, you see that both of those statements are wildly in error and contrary to God’s self-revelation through the Bible. So, hopefully, we can both agree that such statements should not be included in worship music, since we cannot worship God with lies. Are we together so far?
If so, then the discussion we should be having is whether or not the word “reckless” correctly represents God’s love as He has revealed it to us. I think this article correctly highlights this as the main point. So, the statement you made that “this song whether it is biblically correct or not is bringing people to God” is not the appropriate lens through which to view this discussion. If the song is incorrect, then it is NOT bringing people to God, or at best it is doing so IN SPITE OF its content. God calls us to better.
So, by all means, feel free to defend the content as biblical, if you think it is. But let’s please make sure that all of us are seeking to worship God according to His revelation. Otherwise, the standard is purely subjective, which leaves us in a position where anything goes. I hope we can agree that such a view is incorrect.
God bless.
Katie – I appreciate your comments and agree with you. The reality is that this song is touching many hearts – it is currently listed as the #1 song on Christian radio by Billboard and KLOVE ranks it #9 on their playlist. The use of the word “reckless” is controversial only to a minority it would seem and God is using this song (and many others) to touch the hearts of many believers and “pre-believers”.
I think you put this quite well Katie, I agree. I think we have to remember that quite a few songs in the contemporary Christian genre are very much influenced by people’s experiences and/or feelings. If I feel that I am totally overwhelmed by the power of God and that He would come after me with such determination, even if I would actually fight against it.. I might just call that reckless from MY perspective. I also know that a musical expression of love for God, Jesus Christ, salvation, redemption, etc., in a totally vulnerable state may very well not be completely biblically accurate with regard to specific terminology. Yet, the impact that it might have on another, as you indicated to be the case with your daughter, can be quite profound. Isn’t it about the intent? When my son gave me a drawing of me, which didn’t look like me, and spelled “daddy” wrong, I certainly was moved. It moved the rest of the family too. I rejoice to receive the present from my child in whatever condition it might be given, because it comes from the heart.
Hi Katie,
I started reading your comment and before I could continue, something that you said was a little alarming. Please understand as a fellow believer I am doing this in the hopes that you would take what I am saying to God and find out if I am right or wrong in my thinking.
You said “it is songs like these that help us. songs like these that save us and inspire us to read the bible and pray and know god on an even deeper level”… This should not be the case. God (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) should be the reason and inspiration for why we want to read the bible and pray and wanting to get to know him on a deeper level. He an he along should be the motivator. Worship is good. But God doesn’t need our worship, but he deserves it.
I couldn’t wholeheartedly sing the word “reckless” when I had the chance to be a part of the congregation for once. It just connotes a negativity with God that I cannot use in the same sentence with his love. Thank you for the post. Glad I wasn’t the only one. Christianize? Sure, it’s all about the hearts intent. But when we sing “reckless love of God” and other non believers, that is people who don’t know Christianize, are shown an the attribute of reckless is an attribute of God can bring confusion, or worse, a false God. This song is horrible for evangelical reasons. Which is supposed to be a believer’s mission. I understand the authors explanation, but to what cost?
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Absolutely Isaiah calls this evil ..the falling away Stupid, Foolish, and Arrogant!
At first I thought the lyrics did not rise to the level of heresy, but then I read Cory Asbury’s explanation of the song: “He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.” That sentence was troubling because it describes the heresy of open theism that rejects God’s omniscience and insists that even He doesn’t know the outcome of our choices. “The off-chance that one of us might look back at Him?” That is not describing reckless love. It is describing a being who has lost the attributes of an infinite God. I hope Cory Asbury doesn’t really mean to say that.
Great observation. You are correct to detect open theism in his thinking, although I doubt Cory has every heard of the idea. I imagine he just isn’t consistent in his thinking about God’s love and his (likely) affirmation of God’s complete knowledge of the future.
At the same time, although I myself am not an open theist, I don’t regard it as heresy. As you likely know, open theists would still affirm God’s omniscience in as much as they argue that God knows all that is logically possible for God to know–they just believe that it is not logical for God to know a future that doesn’t yet exist and a future that includes the decisions of humans with genuine freedom of choice. Moreover, I don’t regard open theism as heresy because the affirmation of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is not required to affirm the gospel (by contrast, the homoousious is required) and because the affirmation is not found in any of the historic ecumenical creeds. Those two points are my guiding factors for determining what fits the category of “heresy.”
Is denial of Scripture enough for “heresy”? Scripture shows that God KNOWS and DECREES the future. If you deny that, prophecy can’t exist (since God can’t know the future). If it can’t exist, how was the Gospel promised in Genesis 3? How was Christ predicted? What about the promises to Abraham? NT theology is founded upon these texts, and God was not only *PREDICTING*, but *CAUSING* them. (Acts 2:23)
If God can’t know the future, then we have no hope. Our great hope (per Rom 8/Rev, etc.) is the redemption of creation and our salvation/glorification. But if the future is unknown, then OT promises are gutted of their importance, and NT promises are void, because how can we trust God to fulfill His promises? We know that humans fail to keep promises due to circumstances; how can we know that God won’t do the same?
Theology that doubts God’s ability to save His people strikes at the core of the gospel itself. The gospel isn’t “God loves you and does His best to save you.” The gospel is: “God saves sinners.” (There are other facets to the Gospel; this is just the main difference here.)
I agree with your statement about *AFFIRMING* foreknowledge not being required for salvation. I would say similar things about the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. Not affirming those theological truths can occur for a variety of reasons, including ignorance, which isn’t necessarily a barrier to salvation. But that’s very different from a *SPECIFIC DENIAL* of those doctrines. Historically, the church has affirmed that someone who knowingly denies those doctrines cannot be saved. It seems to me that Open Theism likewise denies something that cannot be denied while still claiming the Gospel.
Appreciate your post and thoughts on this song. I came upon your blog via Google search and I too have been reflecting on this song for months. I’m a worship pastor and I echo much of what has been said. I think Cory is a gifted musician/writer and I’m not among those calling him a heretic.
After reading Cory’s explanation on his use of the word “reckless,” I can accept his heart and reasoning on why he chose the word. But I strongly feel the word choice is imprecise, lacks clarity, and is frankly inadequate in describing the love of God. My problem with using it regularly in a congregational setting is the word choice requires context and explanation – which can’t be done every time you sing it. In my view, the best worship songs should stand on their own weight lyrically in speaking truth about God in clear and compelling ways. I think the compelling part is there, but the clarity is lacking. The word reckless lacks clarity and can allow room for different interpretations – not all of which are necessarily helpful.
In addition, I also noticed the song lacks a responsive element (unless there’s something I’m missing, which is possible)… and I think this is rather significant point. Lyrically, the song only speaks directionally about God’s love for us, but you don’t find any lyrical components that specifically encourage repentance. Of course, repentance may be a natural response for the listener, but I wish the song contain a lyric (I run to you… I come… I surrender)… that more specifically encourages it.
In the prodigal son parable, the story teaches about God’s grace, forgiveness, and mercy – but it also doesn’t say the dad went out searching for his son. We know the father surely loved his son, but did he go out and kick down walls to bring him home? Did he climb mountains to bring him home? The son is only embraced and received the benefits of his father’s love when he chose to repent.
In the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus says “… there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents… than over ninety nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” This is Jesus’ closing statement and purpose for the parable… describing the joy in heaven over a sinner who “repents”.
So does God’s love “fight” until we’re found? (Yes, I think so… he “stands at the door and knocks” until we let Him in)
Does it “chase” us down? (Errr…. kind of, sort of? He doesn’t force anything on anyone…)
Does it kick down walls and climb mountains? (Context? In going to the cross, yes… this was the greatest length he could go… but the description of kicking down walls I feel has too many humanistic connotations).
For me, I think the song is musically beautiful and I appreciate Cory’s heart and desire to write a song that speaks about our identity in Christ. I just think the song lacks clarity and falls short in not having responsive lyrical elements. You could certainly follow Reckless Love with something like “Here’s my Heart” or “I Surrender All,” but I go back to… shouldn’t the song be able to stand on its own weight in speaking truth about God in a “clear” and compelling way?
Thanks for your insightful observations, Michael. Your comments regarding repentance are especially helpful. And I agree that clarity is the key issue here. All the best in your ministry!
Yup. Your comment is just equally as enlightening as the article. The scriptures are clear regarding God’s actions regarding His people. He speaks and waits for us to surrender to his will and way. A lot of the latest and greatest church songs tend to use a romantic and even tongue in cheek approach to describing God and His ways, which is great, but we have to make sure that in our creativeness we accurately portray the God of the scriptures.
Michael, good thoughts but allow me to ask, isn’t the problem with the use of the word “reckless” that it is VERY clear? It’s not that it is imprecise and lacks clarity but that it is the opposite. It means something specific that has nothing to do with God’s attributes or behavior.
Reckless means thoughtless and inconsiderate. If you substitute “thoughtless” in the song for “reckless” we wouldn’t be saying the term is imprecise. We would say it is blasphemy.
Thank you so much for your comment Michael – it has helped me put this thing to rest in my mind. I have prayed about it and have been heavy hearted about so many saints singing with a word that is so low to describe the Lord most high!
Someone posted this song in an online Bible study…raving about it. First time I have listened to it….and my spirit cringed at the use of the word “reckless”…..also, not everyone knows the parable of the ’99. So that had to be explained ….this is definitely not a song I would listen to again.
I also cringe when the word reckless is used as an attribute of God. It simply is not a good word to describe Gods love
It really is a stretch to associate Our God with the word “ wreckless” Don’t know of anything that supports the nature of God in Scripture as wreckless, especially The Father’s forgiving overtures toward the Prodigal son while he was still off at a distance.
What is wrong with… the overwhelming, never FAILING, ENDLESS love of God.
I submit that today’s lyricists sometimes exhibit just a bit of vocabulary deficit.. however right their hearts and intentions are.
Bill G.
Steadfast is a great substitution. Especially if you consider “hesed” God’s covanental steadfast love. It actually would be much more powerful because it’s very Biblical.
Thanks. That’s what I had in mind.
Could you give your explanation of the word “hesed”? It is new to me.
Christopher, “Hesed” is a Hebrew word that is usually translated “love,” or in the older translations “lovingkindness.” If you take a look at the short dictionary article at this link, it will give you a good overview of the word’s meaning: https://books.google.ca/books?id=8Tq7UcPMwacC&lpg=PP1&dq=dictionary%20bible&pg=PA862#v=onepage&q&f=false
I have urged our church to use “matchless.” Same number of syllables. Same ending. Should be completely uncontroversial. That small change and this song becomes wonderful, IMO.
Michael, out of curiosity, are you now singing this song with a less problematic substitute word for “reckless”. And if so, how are you dealing with the false teaching in the song that says that God “leaves the 99”?
(Replying to myself because I couldn’t reply to Dan directly for some reason.)
Dan,
No, my suggestion has not been adopted. I believe this to be an issue that isn’t worth pursuing, since the reason given by our elders is that the song is from a human perspective, not a divine one. I disagree with singing it, even under those terms, but I don’t consider that to be worth continued discussions. In my opinion, church unity trumps as the priority in this case.
Also, I don’t believe “[leaving] the 99” is false teaching. You might argue that it’s missing the point of the parable, and I might agree with you, but I do believe the parable of the shepherd leaving the 99 to find the 1 lost sheep is intended (at least in part) to reflect God’s character. As such, I think it’s perfectly suitable to use in a song. As a parable, it is not intended to teach with high specificity, but with general truth: God is the shepherd, and we are the sheep; God had to come get us because we wander away from Him by nature. Again, maybe not the main point of the parable, but it is hardly false teaching to say that God is a pursuing God. Reading “false teaching” into that line seems (to me) to require reading into that line that God abandons His sheep. I don’t believe the song is saying that, so that line isn’t problematic for me.
And that’s why I like the song in general, if we can simply replace the one word, “reckless.” God did amazing things to secure our salvation for us. I have no problem with exalted and perhaps even hyperbolic language to describe the wonder of God’s active, saving love for us. My only problem is when we describe God’s character using words that do NOT describe God’s character.
I am so intrigued with this word “hesed”. I am however also confused, would you mind giving me your definition of it?
The character of God is not something that is built by the perception of mankind. It might be our perception that God’s love is reckless because it may seem so from our perspective and a human point of view, but that does not give us license to impugn God’s character by casting our perceptions onto Him.
Hi my brother! Greetings and I hope You’re doing well! I myself am a big fan of the song as it has helped reshape some of my thinking on how God pursues me. Namely “He chases me down, and tears down lies”; for me this means he erradicates and rips apart with jealous love the lies about who He is and how He is to me from my childhood that have been perverted, twisted and misconstrued by parental upbringing.
When I think of the Term “Reckless Love”, and compare it with the definition of “Reckless” as being “without proper caution and careless of consequences, even irresponsible” (although i myself would stop short of irresponsible), I am reminded of all the times that Jesus ate with tax collectors, dined with prostitutes and sinners, even touching lepers to heal them and having passionate discussions with Samartians; for all the times he “broke” the Sabbath for those with hunched backs, and even allowed “dirty” women to wash his feet with her own tears and hair.
In all these moments, if you gauge the Pharisees and the Religious leader’s responses and mentalities, you can say that they believed Jesus to be Reckless. Him touching a leper (to heal him) according to the law would make him unclean, and infect him. Leprosy if I am not mistaken was contagious, so to come in contact with them would infect you physically; this to me logically speaking seems careless and without proper caution. On surface level, it seems he knew the consequences but chose to do it anyway, which, technically and logically speaking, is reckless. Would you agree? Or when He intentionally sought out sinners personally to know them, like Zacchaeus who was incredibly greedy and on par with lepers back then, to spend time with Him. In the mind of a Pharisee, dining with sinners (someone who wasn’t like them to them), this would make someone unclean and a sinner as them. To them, Jesus was irresponsible with His Faith in God so to speak, meaning He wasn’t Faithfully abstaining from compamy that could corrupt Him, and thus He was breaking th law, with full knowledge of the consequences, Then He was Reckless.
In those wAys, I see Jesus’ love as Reckless: He didn’t care about tradition much, at least not Pharisaical. He wasn’t concerned with being “polluted by sinful company” because He was the Pure One, who knew His identity in the Father, and knew that because He was one with God, He couldn’t be corrupted. He didn’t care about being excommunicated or stoned, because He knew that the Father was with Him, protecting Him, and that people needed to hear His Redemptive Love. He tore down lies in religious culture, shattered mountains of racism and shone light into the shadows of death and darkness in the lives of sinners.
In all these ways, I believe God’s LOVE is Reckless. Because It doesn’t adhere to cultural expectations, it isn’t concerned with religious expectations, it doesnt fear intense or potentially dangerous areas. At it’s core, it is about Gods Redemptive Grace through Jesus.
I hope this wasn’t too much lol. Although I fear it to be too late for that lol. My name is Branden by the way! God bless you.
Thanks for your comments Branden. I appreciate that you are thinking through this and I can see that you (also) certainly don’t have any heresy is what you are trying to convey with the word “reckless.” 🙂
In answer to your question, no, I don’t think that makes Jesus “reckless.” While Jesus may have acted contrary to the expectations of some people, I think he was fully aware of the consequences and, at least at times, that he acted that way with full intention to teach a lesson to those around him. I don’t see these as reckless or careless acts at all. We might say that some religious leaders “thought” he was reckless, but they would have been incorrect in thinking so.
On another note, I think the distinction between saying “God’s love” is reckless vs. saying “God” is reckless is a meaningless distinction. Theologians rightly suggest that you can’t separate God from his attributes. Or to use more biblical language, “God is love.”
Thank you for this post. I had a hard time singing this in church. I substituted the wors reckless with awesome. I asked God to help me if I was missing something so started looking and reading. I found one article where the person said anyone who had a problem with this wors in the song was a Pharisee :0 I definitely didnt think I was that. The way you described it really helped me. Just because i had a hard time declaring (i take what i sing serious) over Gods love as reckless i dont think makes me religious.
My pleasure. I’m glad you found it helpful!
Thank you so much for writing about this. I am saddened that GOD is not enough for the church anymore. We have to make Him look cooler and sound hipper for ‘worship’ songs or create sermon series that appear edgier to the masses. This will continue as long as christians just go along with the program and are more concerned about selling merchandise than preaching the Gospel.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion! I do agree that the concept of God and His Love (which are inseparable, as noted) cannot accurately be described as being “reckless,” at least according to the proper understanding of this word and its use in English. Precise language matters and words have meaning. At the same time we certainly recognize that words often have range of different meanings, and do change over time to some degree. Nevertheless, we need to be careful not to force a word such as “reckless” into a new and different definition conveying the sense of being unselfish, steadfast, resolved, and overwhelmingly generous.
I actually like the song even though it’s potentially misleading. I can allow some artistic license since I think I know what Mr. Asbury is trying to communicate. The song immediately reminded this big Rich Mullins fan of his song “ The Love of God” (1989). Seems to be a similar lyrical usage of the word “reckless”:
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
At least all of this invites a meaningful occasion to open the Word of God and spend some time reading Luke 15!
And just to note the powerful emphasis of these intentionally linked parables is to highlight the Pharisees’ inability to connect with the heart of God’s love for lost sinners and Heaven’s joy in seeing these sinners come to repentance. In this sense, Jesus is actually focusing on the deceived lost sheep/coins/elder brother of Israel who don’t think they need saving, and thus are resentful of Jesus’ ministry to those who were labeled “sinners” by society.
Might we also note that to be perfectly accurate with words, the love of God in these parables seems to be extremely focused on the future rejoicing that will take place when sinners repent and are restored. All three parables end in overwhelming celebration! If this future, personal joy is what compels and motivates the seeker (God) to sacrifice Himself, does that mean that His love isn’t actually completely unselfish?
-Daniel
I believe that God’s love is planned, calculated, strategic, directed, perfectly thought through. The opposite of reckless.
Isaiah 55:11 says His word does not return void but accomplishes what He planned.
All the references used to illustrate the reckless nature of God’s love can be interpreted in exactly the opposite way. Breaking traditions was deliberate, not reckless. Dying on the cross was planned for so long that Isaiah knew it would happen hundreds of years before.
We got to this point of using reckless via two avenues. Firstly, it’s a tweak of “wrecking”, where God breaks down walls and structures to reach our heart and our culture. That’s doctrinally correct, but wreck and reckless are fundamentally different words.
Secondly, the concept of having a crazy time and disregarding the consequences is popular in modern music and art. Think of the Bucket List, or songs like “I’ve got a feeling that tonight’s going to be a good night”. This idea of abandoning responsibilities and stresses is understandable in our modern high-tension culture, but recklessness is not the answer, re-prioritising and simplifying are the answer.
The song is popular because of all of the above, plus the idea of how passionate and intense God’s love is, but in a language of 300,000 words, we have better options for describing His love. And sometimes when we preach or write, we don’t need to invent, we just need to rediscover. If God’s love needs new words to help us feel it, then let’s ask why?
This really hurts my feelings that this song has been put on display in this manner. The reckless love of God is saying that God doesn’t care how it may look and seem to others. In the bible there are several examples of God’s love being called into question. An example of that is the woman with the alabaster box. Another example of this would be the Harlot that was about to be stoned to death because she had been caught with a man that was not her husband. in both instances Jesus not siding with others around him was, in those day, ridiculous. Jesus knew the “Law” and yet his love covered both.
God is the ultimate Shepherd and I think comparing him to a “man” as a Shepherd is craziness! This song is an amazing song and it speaks to the heart of God. It says that no matter who you are, where you are from, what you’ve done that his love covers. Now because we are in a sinful world consequences are inevitable, but even in that he still loves us. His ways are higher than our ways and thoughts are higher than ours. So what may seem reckless to us is very much so “calculated” to him, but our simply mind can’t comprehend this so the song is relative to the perspective of man. If you listen on to the song it says “I don’t deserve it, I couldn’t earn it still you give yourslef away”
It goes on to say: There’s no shadow you won’t light up, mountain you won’t climb up coming after me. That suggest where others would say, I’m long gone, there is no hope, it’s impossible, his love says: Yeah… not for me!
What father do you know would allow his son who is sinless and blameless to come down to a sin-filled earth to die for people that were not only on the earth at the time, but you and me, people that weren’t even thought in another’s mind. Reckless to our mind, completely craziness to us! Sometimes we take things to an extreme. God uses all things to make his name famous! Just let him be famous.
Thanks for sharing your feedback. Overall the song has a great message. Obviously I still think the word “reckless” is inaccurately used though 🙂
Thanks for your thoughts about Asbury’s lyric Andrew.
I personally find the song illogical, needlessly divisive, and heretical.
The other day I ran across a blog that defended Asbury’s song; stating that God’s love appears reckless to “someone who does not understand or know God”. This is now a common defense of the song across the Internet. It’s not that God or His behavior are reckless but that unbelievers can think that it is!
Before the firestorm erupted about the song, most understood it was Asbury’s primary, titular thesis that God’s love is, in actuality, reckless. After all, as his verse states plainly, “it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine.” That’s not a statement about what the WORLD thinks of God’s love. It is what Asbury himself (and by extension, the person singing his words) thinks about God’s love.
If we must now grant that Reckless Love is really about what the World thinks about God’s behavior, then it’s the first lyric of its kind to find it’s way into the Christian worship experience.
What other opinions does the World have about God that we’ll get to sing about next?
There’s more that can be said about how ridiculous it is to give voice in a worship song to what pagans think about the nature of God’s love, but there is an even deeper problem with the lyric that many miss.
Let’s think about the apparent Scriptural basis Asbury is using for the assertion about God’s “reckless love”: The Parable of the Lost Sheep.
That parable is one of a pair that then contrasts with a third.
The first two, the lost sheep and the lost coin, are aimed squarely at the Pharisees who accused Jesus of cavorting with sinners. In those two stories he places the assembled accusers in the role of shepherd/housewife and goes on to illustrate how they love possessions (the livestock and the coin) so much they would do anything to recover them. When they did find their lost object, they rejoice greatly. Jesus then, in the third story, contrasts what they would do against what the Heavenly Father does. The father in the final story waits for his lost son and when the son finally does come to his senses, the Father runs to greet him in the driveway.
Notice the difference?
The first two are about the Pharisees love of “stuff” and how happy they are upon gaining back their stuff. Jesus knew how much these men loved “things” and used that to paint a word picture about how much more heaven rejoices over what is truly valuable; the repentance of the wayward.
A key insight here is that the parable of the lost sheep is not about Jesus searching for sinners at all. Jesus doesn’t place himself in the role of the shepherd – He actually places his critics in that role. He says they WOULD leave the “99” (which, of course, Jesus would NEVER do.)
Ironically, as it relates to Asbury’s lyric, a major point of the climax of this three part story is that the father does NOT “recklessly” go out in search of his prodigal son at all! He doesn’t even send a search party of his hired help to go “chase him down”. What’s up with that? Didn’t Jesus just say in the first part of his teaching that He WOULD leave the 99 sheep alone and go out to [recklessly] find just the one?
NARRATOR VOICE: No, we DID NOT just hear Jesus say that.
He said the PHARISEES would do that. This contrasts to God’s behavior which waits for us to return to Him, at which time he will forgive what we’ve done and welcome us back with open arms just as the father did with his prodigal son.
Bottom line, we know God will never leave or forsake us and yet, Asbury is claiming that God DOES do just that when He recklessly “leaves the 99”.
This is a false teaching that goes beyond his redefinition of the word “reckless” – bad as that may be. It claims that God DOES leave us and forsake us – something that He promised over and over He would never do.
Sadly, Asbury has congregations singing this false doctrine throughout the Christian community every Sunday.
Dan, I actually don’t quite agree with your interpretation of the parable. I do think that the parable is meant to reflect God as the shepherd that leaves the 99, but I don’t think that the shepherd leaves the sheep unprotected (as explained above in the original post).
Your explanation of the parable requires the Luke 15 context, where Jesus is speaking to Pharisees and teachers of the law, as well as the surrounding parables. By contrast, when the parable occurs in Matthew 18, it appears that Jesus might be speaking to the disciples (verse 1) and it isn’t surrounded by the same parables as in Luke 15. Also, in Matt 18:14 Jesus explicitly compares the shepherd to “your Father in heaven” who is “not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.”
So, in both the Luke 15 passage and the Matthew 18 passage Jesus actually praises the rejoicing and actions of shepherd.
Hi Andrew.
Yes, my criticism of Asbury is that he is using the Luke version of if the parable not Matthew 18 and then goes on to misinterpret it to imply something about a God that is untrue.
The version in Luke says that the shepherd leaves the 99 in the open country or wilderness, which would, according to Asbury, be “reckless”.
The Matthew version, a teaching that Jesus gave at a different time and place, says the shepherd leaves the 99 in the “hills”. This is a significant difference. Flocks could be left in the hills on their own while the shepherd went to find a straying sheep. This being the case, the shepherd isn’t being reckless at all so the Asbury lyrics wouldn’t make sense if they were alluding to the Matthew 18 story.
Furthermore, the Matthew 18 telling is in the context of teachings on the Church and how we should relate to the “weaker brother”. So here, the analogies for who the sheep represent are different between the two parables. In Matthew 18 the sheep is not lost but has “strayed”. That sheep chose to leave. Meanwhile, in Luke the sheep IS lost. This makes sense given the context of Luke and the gospel message to the sinner.
“Reckless Love” is lyrically about God chasing down the unbeliever. This is clearly based on Asbury’s take on the Luke telling of the parable in which he places Jesus (not the Pharisees) in the role of shepherd. The song is not about chasing down immature or “straying” Christians.
In Matthew Jesus does not place anyone (Himself included) in the role of the shepherd but just tells the story as a thought piece more than anything. In this version Jesus is talking to His disciples in the context of Christians being careful not to lead the “little ones” astray. Therefore, this parable has a completely different point than Jesus is making in Luke (or that Asbury is making in his song lyrics).
Asbury is saying that God is willing to recklessly abandon the “99” to go after the lost. One MIGHT interpret the Luke telling of the parable to mean this (though I maintain it cannot given God’s promises about never leaving us) but certainly this does not align with the Matthew telling of the parable. This is why I’m leaving the Matthew parable out of the equation. It doesn’t relate to the song.
Put another way, the parable in Matthew has a subtle message within the context of the surrounding teachings about leading others astray. In Luke, one can draw two different possible conclusions; either God abandons us in the wilderness to search for the lost or alternatively, the story is about how much more God cares for people as opposed to how much the Pharisees cared for material things.
It is clear to me that that Asbury is referencing the Luke parable and further interprets it to mean that God is willing to put the rest of us (the “99”) at risk while He searches for the lost.
Can we agree that the Matthew parable is in the context of straying believers (which “Reckless Love” is definitely not about)? And if so, that Reckless Love is not based on that version of the parable?
If we can then we’re back to Asbury basing his lyric on the Luke version, which is, to his way of thinking, about recklessly searching for lost souls.
I, on the other hand, believe that this, and the lost coin parable, are a deliberate dig at the Pharisees about their love of “stuff” and pointedly reminds them how much more heaven rejoices at the rescue of the unrepentant than men do at the finding of a material object.
I’m open to the first interpretation (minus the reckless part). But I do observe that Jesus Himself says the Pharisees are in the role of the shepherd in the Luke teaching. I believe this is key to how the story unfolds and what we are to take away from it.
Best,
Dan
I guess we will continue to disagree on the parables 🙂
Hi I came across this post and I enjoyed the read. I would just like to off a different thought threw the scriptures, I went to the Merriam and this is what it said (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reckless). With this in mind *marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences* I take this as Jesus knew exactly what he was doing he just didn’t care about the consequences because hes God,Holy,Perfect, what could go wrong? Nothing…… that to me is the point of this song, he would chase us anywhere threw anything because of his amazing, unrelenting, passionate and dare I say it reckless love? I love you my brothers and sisters and I understand Bethel and there theology yea won’t go there.
This is just my view its good to talk about these things brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ name I pray we love and unify the body of Christ we have to many divisions with denominations, politics…. Paul dealt with these same things even when he was walking this earth. God Bless keep the faith and finish the race well!
Sincerely, Shaun Ritchie
Reckless- without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action
God loves us without even thinking about it or caring what we are doing or have done. His love has no negative consequences so why can’t it be reckless?!?
Maybe I am wrong, but this is just how I see it. Feel free to send replies to me with how you feel about my response.
God ABSOLUTELY cares about the consequences of His love.
To say otherwise would be to imply that He hasn’t thought things through.
Reckless love is when you endanger others to say, save your little boy from getting injured when he escapes from your supervision. He gets up on a piece of construction equipment and starts fiddling with controls. Instead of making sure that the lever he just threw doesn’t result in dropping a load of steel onto a crowd below, you grab him and take him back to your car where he’s safe.
You didn’t think about the consequences of saving your son. You thought only about him and not others. As a result, of your reckless love you ended up killing people when the steel dropped on the crowd. You sinned.
People are reckless all the time and often, such recklessness is punishable with a jail sentence. Recklessness is never a positive attribute.
As I understand the word “reckless,” there is no such thing as “recklessness” unless there is the possibility of negative consequences. Thus, if “His love has no negative consequences” (as you say, Erika), then it wouldn’t be possible for it to be reckless.
Now, this isn’t the case if we redefine reckless to mean something other than what it typically means. One might suggest that the author of the song does this, but I don’t think he does, given that he suggests that God is reckless in leaving the 99 to possible harm. But, as I stated above, that is a misinterpretation of that biblical parable.
Andrew, your last line is right on.
There is a lot of misinterpretation going on.
1. Asbury’s take: God exhibits reckless behavior by leaving the 99. (Dan: this would be a bad thing if it happened – but it clearly is not what Jesus was saying).
2. Some defenders take: “recklessness” can sometimes be a good thing. (Dan: this is grasping at straws in a vain hope that maybe Asbury is capable of “evolving” the English language).
3. Other defenders take: God doesn’t care about the consequences of His actions. He loves just that much. (Dan: this is so obviously blasphemous that I’m always taken back when I see this defense).
What is surprising to me is how many people, including theologians, call the shepherd in the parable the “good shepherd” and then go on to place Jesus in the role. Read the story people! Jesus places the PHARISEES in the role of the shepherd in the story, not Himself.
The irony here is that it is entirely possible that a Pharisee would be reckless enough to leave 99 sheep to go search for one. However, I don’t think Jesus’ audience would have worried about this plot point given that most would assume the hired hands would look after the 99 while the shepherd was out searching for the one. But either way, the teaching is not about God leaving the 99 sheep.
If the shepherd is Jesus, then he wouldn’t leave the 99 alone so there is nothing reckless going on.
If the shepherd is a Pharisee, as Jesus says in his parable, then yes they might leave the 99 alone but then, we wouldn’t be talking about God’s love in the first place.
If the shepherd, whether Jesus or a Pharisee, operates with standard, well understood protocol of the day, then the sheep are not left alone at all. This being the case, no recklessness occurred here either.
This is what makes this lyric frankly, just stupid and illogical.
I personally believe the adjective used to describe my Perfect (completely righteous) Lord casts a shadow of doubt by using ‘reckless’ to tell how faithful the Lord is in His pursuit of one. The reason being— a culture studies English as a prerequisite and mandatory class in education courses. We are graded on vocabulary. As a child of God, I believe God expects us to not cause a stumbling block by/4 our brother or sister. Word choice is extremely important for truth.
When I think about God and His attributes, reckless isn’t a word that comes to mind. I picture Him telling Moses to tell Pharoah “ I AM” sent you.”
This sends shivers down my spine thinking of a God so great and mighty we can’t even see His face. These songs to me are the musical version of some of the famous books popular today like Jesus Calling or 1000 Gifts…..Gobbly Gook. Even though the song is describing God as Reckless(or His love, whatever) the focus is stil on me, me, me. Chasing me down, saving me, pursuing me….who exactly is being worshipped here?
This song isn’t about me, it’s about what God did for me. It’s a song of thanksgiving to God for His amazing, wonderful love for His children. If you think about what you said, you’ll see that you’re basically forbidding people from thanking God for what He’s done for them.
Luke, you may certainly thank God for all he’s done for you however you like in your private prayer and worship. This is concerning corporate worship. I came here to this blog because my church sang it and I didn’t like it. Just because it’s set to music and sounds good doesn’t give us an excuse to throw correct theology by the wayside. Mr Asbury May like the thought of God kicking down doors for him, but for me it brings up terrible memories of my stepdad actually kicking in doors-and not for love. See, if we stick to worshipping the Lord and His attribute, and the lyrics are scriptually accurate, no follower should be offended or confused. I would challenge everyone continuing to read this thread(excellent by the way!) to watch the short YouTube clip-“Allistair Begg-Knowing vs Feeling in Worship.” It’s like 5 minutes. In the meantime-keep teaching and admonishing each other-iron sharpening iron, question and search everything and only settle for Truth.
Andrew (and others):
I stumbled across this post while searching for the lyrics to “Reckless Love”. I was saddened to see what I perceive as disunity in the church. If we are so quick to criticize a brother in Christ because we don’t agree with his use on the word “reckless” – why should unbelievers think that we will treat them with any less judgment?
“Reckless Love” – in my opinion – is how we as believers (and sometimes unbelievers) view God’s love toward us. Much like Francis Chan’s excellent book “Crazy Love” – the choice of words to describe God’s love is not intended to be doctrinally sound, but to communicate how God’s love feels to us. From my personal perspective, for God to love me after all I have done in my life … how I turned my back on Him … how I lived a life of sin and shame – for God to love me despite my sin, well that kinda seems reckless! Not that God is saying He Himself is reckless, but I perceive His love that way.
Do we really believe that Paul believes that the Cross is folly when he writes in 1 Corinthians 1:8 (ESV) For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ? I think we all accept that this passage really means that the power of the Cross seems foolish to those who don’t believe … not that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was folly.
I am also saddened that some of you interpret Luke 15:4 to read “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not take the time to safely find someone to watch the other ninety-nine sheep, and once that is taken care of – go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? How sad for us to believe that God’s love is conditional upon safety. The ESV says that He “… leaves the ninety-nine in the open country …” – that is the picture of God’s love that makes sense to me.
Back to my first point, in John 13:35 (ESV) Jesus tell us “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Would a non-believer be seeing love in this chain of comments? I 100% support that you don’t need to like this song or sing this song, but I would ask that you consider what these comments do for the unity of the Church (capital “C” church – not your specific church). In Ephesians 4:3 (ESV) we are instructed to be “…eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” And for the record, I am a 63 year old man who grew up in the Methodist church.
This is what I was trying to say but you did a much better job at it! Thank you!
Barry,
Should I take your response to me, where you disagree with me, as being a criticism against me personally? Should I consider your response as you contributing to disunity in the Church? I assume not.
Likewise, I’m didn’t criticize the song’s author. I focused solely on the song.
I’m not Barry, but I would say his criticism of you is an attempt at unifying the Church as Paul did with his criticism of divisiveness. While you’re not criticizing the author, and I certainly appreciate how respectful and balanced your approach was, you did cause division here. Paul spoke to the Corinthians about abstaining from perfectly good food for the sake of preventing misconceptions about our devotion to God. If you believe this to be a song with a powerful message, with its roots in Godly devotion, then why run the risk of perpetuating the misconception that it’s not praiseworthy over a technicality?
DanB- To the contrary, I would suggest that one could say the same thing about those who sing the song Reckless Love.
In other words, why run the risk of singing a song that might cause division in the Church, when it is so clear that many people find the song problematic and, at times, even offensive. There are many other perfectly good songs about God’s love to sing that don’t cause “division.”
Hi Andrew:
With thanks to DanB, I have a few words to say as well. I don’t think in my response to you I was either disrespectful or inappropriate and I spoke what I believe to be the truth in love.
With respect to promoting disunity, I did not use any of the following words or phrases – but several of the other commenters did. These are the words that I believe foster disunity and can be confusing to unbelievers:
– implying that ‘reckless’ really only applies to Lucifer/Devil/Deceiver
– sinful
– heresy / heritical
– illogical
– false teaching
– stupid
– Gobbly Gook
Barry, I agree with you. Your response was neither disrespectful or inappropriate. My questions above (“Should I take your response to me, where you disagree with me, as being a criticism against me personally? Should I consider your response as you contributing to disunity in the Church?”) were more to point out that you disagree with me, but that doesn’t mean you are contributing to disunity. Likewise, I (and others) should be able to disagree with the song without people thinking that there is then “disunity in the church” (your words).
But, I agree with you that there are some words shared here in the comments that are really written with grace. Perhaps that is all that you had in mind.
I’m with you Barry! I appreciate your love for the Church and couldn’t agree with you more. The Bible has plenty of poetic language about God that’s innacurate when interpreted literally and without context.
Perhaps it means his love which “I couldn’t earn it, I don’t deserve it” is a love that cant be understood completely by mankind. The answers he gives us (or sometimes doesnt give us) can be frustrating because its not what we want to hear .However, trusting in God comes into play when this occurs because in the end he knows what is best for you. Therefore, his “reckless love” is viewed as an adjective not a noun. The type of love he has may be viewed as reckless because (although we may not understand it sometimes) he will do anything to bring you to realization or provide insight, that of which you may not agree with or want, but it is what he knows is right for you. In conclusion, trust in the lord with all your heart, there is method to his madness .
Very good Lisa! I think one key is that we can really never understand the vastness of God’s love for each one of us …
well I think that what you said about God’s love is clear and thoughtful intention, key word intention, being reckless is also intentional. I was aware of the consequence, I just did it anyway. I think it just depends on the situation. Because firefighters jump into dangerous situations knowing it could end up very bad, meaning they chose not to care about the consequences and we consider it bravery, though a reckless act. Another definition of reckless Behavior that is so careless that it is considered an extreme departure from the care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Drunk drivers can also be reckless. both circumstances are very intentional. Jumping into fire is intentional and so is getting drinking beyond you limits.
You might ask a few friends if they think firefighters are reckless for going into burning buildings. I doubt anyone will answer “yes” (unless perhaps they know you are trying to justify this song). The word reckless is tied to negative connotations. Firefighters aren’t reckless. They are careful enough to put on protective equipment, and if they think it isn’t safe, they aren’t supposed to enter a building. Of course, if they ignore the signs of unmanageable danger and still enter, then we might consider them reckless.
Andrew, Thanks for providing a forum for discussion of the critical doctrinal issues underlying the lyrics of Asbury’s “Reckless Love”.
As more and more people find this and related threads via Google searches, I am noticing a trend, that being the seeming inability of some to actually defend the song on its merits without wandering off into unrelated areas. Many are justifiably concerned about the widespread integration of this song into the modern worship experience and I think it is worth exploring why.
What I’m seeing in this debate is something found all too commonly in online political threads, that being the use of deflection. It’s frustrating to see people come into discussions like this and talk about how “divisive” critics of Asbury’s lyrics are, but then completely fail to address the doctrinal issues being raised by these so-called “divisive” people.
If you are reading this post and are defending Asbury, then all I ask is that you address the central issues in a civil and thoughtful manner. Don’t deflect. Don’t change the subject. Don’t play the “you’re being so divisive” card. It’s not helpful in getting to the core facts of the matter.
As this debate has heated up on the internet I’m observing that defenders of the song tend to change the subject and avoid the doctrinal and Scriptural issues. I honestly do not understand why people think this is a good approach. It obfuscates rather than illuminates.
Here is what I’m seeing of late as the song polarizes Christians. Defenders say:
“Stop criticizing Cory Asbury. He is only trying to communicate how ‘endless, sacrificial, boundless, caring, and vast’ God’s love is.”
To this I say, we all are fully aware of how caring and vast God’s love is. But that has ZERO to do with the criticism. The song is not named “Endless Love” (maybe because Lionel Richie already took that title?). We are talking about Asbury (and his defenders) attributing a sinful behavior (if we are to take the word reckless in it’s normal meaning) to God. As we all know, the word means “thoughtless and inconsiderate, uncaring about the consequences on others of one’s actions.”
THERE IS NO OTHER DEFINITION FOR THE WORD.
I dislike shouting but how many ways can it be said that “reckless” does not mean ‘vast’ or ‘unceasing’ or ‘sacrificial’ or any of a dozen other words I’ve seen defenders of this lyric redefine the word to mean?? It’s nonsensical.
The song could accurately be retitled, “Thoughtless Love” and it would carry the same English meaning. How many would sing a song with that lyric in it? I would hope no one, yet that is exactly what people are doing every Sunday.
There are some defenders who are beginning to recognize this problem so they have moved to a different defense…
“We know that ‘reckless’ is not something that we should be saying about God but what Cory actually means is that reckless is what the WORLD might think about God’s love.”
As I have said previously, since when do we sing lyrics in worship services that give voice to what the World thinks about God? Name a single, other worship song that does this. Again, it makes no sense whatsoever to codify the world’s thinking about God’s behavior into a song. God is NOT reckless. no matter what immature believers or the World may think. There is no example in Scripture of God ever doing anything thoughtlessly. If He did, He would not be God. Plus, I don’t think this was the original intent of the writer in the first place, TBH.
When it is pointed out that we shouldn’t be writing the World’s opinions of God into our worship lyrics, people then return to this…
“Well, the parable of the Lost Sheep DOES imply that the shepherd was reckless when he left the 99 so the lyric does make sense”.
I’ve commented in a couple of posts above on the serious problems with this interpretation of the parable. Ironically, even if Cory rewrote the song to delete the word “reckless” that would not solve the problem that the rest of the song teaches: that God DOES leave the 99 at risk so that He can chase after the unsaved.
Allow me to summarize the doctrinal issues at play here:
a. The shepherd in the Luke telling of the parable is not “Jesus, the Good Shepherd”. Jesus makes it clear at the top of the telling that the part of the shepherd in his story is played by the Pharisees to whom He was speaking.
b. This is not the parable you are looking for. “Reckless Love”, in case people think otherwise, cannot be based on the version of the parable in Matthew because there, Jesus is talking about how believers should relate to other believers, specifically “weaker” ones. People need to be aware that the Matthew version has different subject context, different wording, and a different audience. It has nothing to do with God going out and tracking down unbelievers (as might be inferred from the Luke version.)
c. God promises never to leave us or forsakes us. Asbury’s lyric states that God DOES leave the 99. To state that He leaves us is a direct contradiction to many Scriptural promises to the contrary. (See http://www.thejourney2grace.com/index.cfm?i=11059&mid=1000&id=324730).
It is my hope that people defending this song will dig into Scripture. Don’t just read into the song lyrics or the parable of the lost sheep what you heard or hope they mean but rather, what is really being said.
Asbury is specifically asking the singers of his song to proclaim that God is reckless and that He does go after the one lost person to the potential endangerment of the “99”. That’s what the plain reading of his lyric states.
Likewise, I encourage people to read the parable upon which Asbury is ostensibly basing his lyric. There are major clues throughout, that the parable is not teaching what Asbury says it is teaching.
I highly suggest an article on Luke 15:1-32 written by Robert Deffinbaugh found over at Bible.org that cuts to the core issues on the trilogy of lost and found parables.
https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32
Let this discussion be about what the Bible says and what Jesus taught. This is a quality blog about important issues. We should be able to debate what kind of teaching we are allowing in our worship services without labeling people as divisive.
Best to you all.
Dan,
I completely agree that Christians should be able to disagree on things without thinking we are being “divisive.” My wife and I don’t agree on things all the time (even in public), but that doesn’t make people think we no longer love each other or that we don’t have unity.
As I indicated above (I assume you are the same Dan I responded to above), I disagree with your interpretation of the Luke 15 parable. I see no way the shepherd can be the Pharisees.
It seems like quite a stretch to suggestion that Jesus told the same parable on two occasions (the other being Matthew 18) with such divergent meanings. Also, it seems clear that Jesus affirms the rejoicing of the shepherd when he says, “in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents.”
As you probably know, if you check with most biblical scholars, you will find that they agree with me on this interpretation of the shepherd parable in Luke 15.
Andrew, with all due respect, I know of very few Biblical scholars that would say that the intent of these two parables is the same. Quite the opposite. Allow me some posting space to explain.
1. The key players are obviously different.
In Luke, the Holy Spirit made sure that readers are aware that Jesus is specifically placing the Pharisees in the role of the shepherd. This is not a matter of “interpretation”. It’s what Jesus states.
Meanwhile, in the Matthew parable Jesus is talking to His disciples and doesn’t place them in the role of the shepherd. He does not say to them, “imagine one of you owns 100 sheep…”. No, he says, “if a man owns 100 sheep…”
Now one might [rightly] infer that in the Matthew story, God the Father is the “man” who owns the sheep. This is because at the end, Jesus does say “in the same way your Father is not willing…”. Furthermore, unlike the reckless and careless shepherd in Luke, the shepherd in Matthew seems to be a true professional.
At the wrap up to the Luke story Jesus makes no direct connection between the shepherd and anyone else, certainly not the Father as He does in Matthew. This brings me to the next key difference:
2. The takeaways.
In Matthew, Jesus specifically is telling His disciples that the Father does not wish for any weaker brother to perish. Matthew 18 is all about the relationships between stronger and weaker believers. There is no discussion about the gospel or expressions of emotion over the recovery of the lost, as we see in Luke.
Jesus wraps His parable in Luke with a completely different takeaway. If it was the same story then why, after the shepherd finds his lost sheep in Luke, does Jesus not say, “in the same way your Father does not wish any to perish.” ?
The question answers itself: because the Father is not the shepherd described in the Luke story. The Luke story is not intended to show that God searches for lost souls. Rather, it’s to point out that the when the Pharisees find something valuable they rejoice and even more so when someone repents, the angels in heaven rejoice.
3. Lose vs. wander.
In Luke, Jesus says the shepherd “loses” one of his sheep. The sheep is apparently lost due to the shepherd’s own incompetence or carelessness. Jesus doesn’t elaborate but simply places the blame for the loss on the shepherd (rather than on the sheep as He does in Matthew). This is reinforced in the next part of the teaching where the housewife misplaces her coin. She was either forgetful, disorganized, or absent minded. We are not told how she loses the coin but only that she did (coins don’t run off on their own).
Contrast this with the Matthew story. Notice that the sheep wanders away from the flock of its own volition. Jesus doesn’t say that the shepherd there “loses” one of his sheep as He said happened in the other story. This may be a clue that the shepherd here IS the Father, who would certainly never misplace any one of us.
4. The open countryside vs. the hills.
So this is another key difference between the two teachings. If the stories are the same then evidently Jesus is forgetting that it is quite different to leave a flock in the safety of the hills vs. the unprotected open country. Why would He mangle such an important plot point? Why not just say that the terrain is the same in both stories?
The answer may be that Jesus is highlighting a distinctive issue. In the Luke telling, the Pharisees might just recklessly leave their flock at risk in open country. A “Good Shepherd” like the Father, could leave his sheep in the protection of the hills – but never alone in the open countryside.
Now some say (even I have mentioned this before) that the 99 would probably not have been left alone in the countryside, as the shepherd would have had family or hired hands to watch over them. This is fine to postulate, but to me, the only reason someone might posit this argument is that they are running to the defense of an otherwise careless and reckless character in the story. But this is unnecessary. People are ignoring who Jesus said, at the outset, is playing the role of the shepherd!
Since we already have been told the shepherd is the Pharisee in the audience, Jesus might very well have purposefully insinuated that they would be the kind of thoughtless sheep herder who would leave their flock at the mercy of wolves. Or maybe not. Jesus doesn’t specify whether the 99 were left at risk or not – that’s not really the point of the story. It’s added flavor.
5. Shepherds in Jesus’ parables.
There is a third shepherd parable, found in John 10. Here Jesus is again speaking to the Pharisees about a shepherd and his sheep. Notice that Jesus pointedly places HIMSELF, not the Pharisees, in the role of the shepherd in this telling. It’s like He is saying that this is a completely different shepherd than the other one who lost his sheep. In John, Jesus labels this particular character, the Good Shepherd.
Let’s briefly recount:
– In Luke we’re told the Pharisee is in the role of a careless shepherd.
– In Matthew the shepherd is just a “man”, although we might easily interpret this shepherd to be God the Father since that’s a connection Jesus makes at the end.
– In John the shepherd is Jesus. He tells us so directly.
I should also mention that many commentaries mistakenly label the shepherd in Luke as the “Good Shepherd”. This is laughable if you actually read what Jesus says about this particular guy. He’s not good at all. He’s actually kind of an amateur. For some reason, people seem to think that since Jesus says elsewhere that He’s a good shepherd that everywhere shepherds are mentioned in Scripture they must be “good”. This is clearly false.
5. Surrounding context.
As I alluded to above, the Luke parable is intended to illuminate the feelings of joy His audience would have in finding a valuable thing they misplaced. Since we are told that the shepherd in Luke is the Pharisee then this story can’t be about God’s reckless search for the sinner. The coin story builds on this theme, which then contrasts with the longer prodigal parable, the meaning of which is fairly clear.
Jesus is very specific that neither the shepherd nor the housewife are intended to be Him. They are just people like those in His audience who lose things and then rejoice when they find their things.
It’s like He is saying, “imagine you, reader of this blog, had a winning raffle ticket and managed to be careless enough to misplace it. You look everywhere for it and when you finally find it, just imagine how happy you would be. You would throw a big party because you found what you thought was lost. You think that would be unbelievably great? Well, way more than that, the angels in heaven rejoice when someone repents.”
Meanwhile, over in Matthew, Jesus is not talking about rejoicing over the repentance of sinners but is reminding the disciples (and the rest of us) that immature believers (the “children”) can wander for a variety of reasons, away from the fellowship. This might be because of the way they were treated by the “stronger brother.”
In closing, allow me to return to the incoherence of the Asbury lyric in light of the points above. There are three possible interpretations of the Luke parable of the lost sheep and only one can be associated with his song.
1. The shepherd (Jesus) loses one of his sheep (i.e. the sheep didn’t wander away, but rather, the shepherd somehow lost track of one of them) but remembers to ask his family to watch the flock while he goes in search of the one. Obviously, this can’t be the interpretation Asbury is relying upon since it wouldn’t be reckless to leave the 99 in the care of others – only if they were left alone.
2. The shepherd (Jesus) manages to lose the sheep. The shepherd then leaves the flock by itself and goes in search of the one sheep he failed to keep track of in the first place. This is where Asbury gets the notion of reckless love. Jesus leaving the 99 alone in the wilderness to search for His missing sheep.
3. The shepherd (the Pharisee) carelessly loses a valuable sheep and then thoughtlessly leaves the 99 to their own devices (or not) while the shepherd searches for his one lost sheep. While this MIGHT be considered reckless behavior and it could very well be, the fact that the shepherd isn’t Jesus is a fairly important distinction when it comes to the song lyric since Asbury is not writing about the “Reckless Love” of some Pharisee.
No matter how you cut it, the lyric just isn’t Scriptural.
I apologize for the length of this response but I firmly believe that Jesus doesn’t just causally tell these parables and change plot points around randomly. I encourage people to go back and read what Jesus actually said. If you have to diagram the story structure, do it. There are actually many significant differences between the two sheep parables. There’s a reason the Luke story is called the “Lost Sheep Parable” and the Matthew story is called the “Wandering Sheep Parable”. They have two different plots and a different set of actors.
Once one does the study I believe it will become more clear how Asbury’s lyric is not just spreading false doctrine but actually makes no logical sense at all.
Dan,
Thanks for your clear explanation.
I see your point that we don’t have to take God to be the shepherd in the Luke 15 parable of the shepherd (it could be the Pharisees, or the tax collectors, or anyone listening). Really, we don’t need to take God to be the shepherd in Mathew 18 either, since there Jesus simply says, “If a man… owns a hundred sheep” (v. 12).
The comparison I was concerned about was more between the action of the shepherd and the Father (Matt 18:14) and the shepherd and those “in heaven” (Luke 15:7). Namely, like the shepherd, God doesn’t want anyone to perish (Matthew) and, like the shepherd, those in heaven rejoice at the repentance of sinners (Luke).
Somewhere along the line I may have misinterpreted something you said and that threw me off. I thought you were saying that Jesus was saying the Pharisees were wrong for caring about the lost sheep and, therefore, for rejoicing so much when they found it. That made no sense to me since Jesus says heaven rejoices “in the same way” (Luke 15:7), which appears to be an affirmation of the rejoicing of the shepherd and his friends.
In the end, I think (maybe) that you weren’t suggesting such “divergent meanings” (my words) as I thought you were between the two parables. Different emphases—but not so divergent.
At the same time, I think you are supposing too much from the differences between the parables. For example, your observation of the sheep who “wonders away” (Matt 18:12) versus the sheep who is “lost” (Luke 15:6) doesn’t necessarily imply that the shepherd in Luke was irresponsible. Keep in mind that even though the prodigal son intentionally left his father, the father refers to the son as “lost” (Luke 15:32), and you don’t seem to think that the father in that story was irresponsible.
Thanks again for the exchange. It is clear to me that you are thoughtful in your interpretation of Scripture and that you take handling the Word of God seriously.
Before you riwrite something maybe spell check and if you don’t know what the author Cory ashbury meant by it maybe check this out. People express God’s love for them in a million different forms. Who are we to judge?
https://youtu.be/6xx0d3R2LoU
If you go up closer to the top of the comments, you will find that I already posted Cory Asbury’s explanation of his song. In my comment above I also explained why I don’t find his explanation helpful.
My comment isn’t too far down from the top. I included a link to his explanation on Facebook (which he quotes in the video link you have posted).
Aside from what I said above, I will reiterate one thing I stated in my post. Some people try to make a distinction between saying “God’s love” is reckless vs. saying “God” is reckless. But that is a meaningless distinction. Theologians rightly suggest that you can’t separate God from his attributes. Or to use more biblical language, “God is love.”
I only found your blog because I googled the term “reckless love of God” after hearing it in church yesterday. Admittedly, I struggle with the current mode of “worship” always making an effort to not allow my age to be the impetus of my critique about the current musical expression in worship. More importantly, I am concerned with the lyrics aside from the way they are expressed.
In the case of this song, It seems to me that no matter in what context one might use the term reckless, it’s hard for it to not have a negative connotation. On its face the term reckless suggests someone acting apart from the outcome or consequences of actions whether positive or negative. I find that incongruent with an omniscient God who had all things, including me, in mind from before the foundation of the world.
Sometimes, perhaps by default, we use anthropomorphic language attempting to describe or understand omniscience. Knowing what I know about myself, I’m sure I can’t adequately describe or express it. I feel our inability to reach a good understanding of who God is only amplifies the constraints of human ability – the gateway to worship whether in song or in quiet meditation.
I agree with Andrew doubting that the writer had any intention toward heresy, but I think a better choice of words could have been used to describe who God is or how he might act. Sometimes people who are not thinking critically about such things as song lyrics might unwittingly develop a concept of God that is beneath who the “I AM” is.
Yes. 👆
I think we all might be surprised when we get to heaven and discover that even our tight and tidy theological definitions fail to adequately define God’s love. Even the most eloquent and accurate theology is but vulgar slag. The acentric poet and prideful scholar are both bound by earthly inadequacy.
If we are talking about the God of the Bible (rather than the god of Greek metaphysics), certainly He makes reckless decisions. One was creating mankind. Things go so astray that the narrator and God both exclaim God’s regret of His own prior act in creating man:
Gen 6:6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
This is one of two times the Bible explicitly depicts God as regretting His own decisions.
Embedded in the Genesis narrative is a second reversal, more hidden than the first. Scholar David Clines writes:
///According to the biblical narrative, the Flood is determined upon by the deity because humans are wicked. He is sorry he has created humans and resolves to ‘blot them out’ with a flood of waters. The universal Flood he plans to bring upon the earth will destroy not only all humans but also all animals, and the earth itself (Gen. 6.13). His design is therefore to undo the whole work of creation.
In the event, according to the narrative, that is the opposite of what happens. The earth survives, the waters dry up, the animals are released on to the earth to breed abundantly (8.17)-and humanity, because of whom the annihilating Flood has been sent, is charged with being fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth yet again (9.1).
So the deity not only totally changes his mind about the wisdom of creating the world, he also totally changes his mind about the wisdom of uncreating it. The narrative, however, does not say that. It spends some time explaining how God decided to destroy the world, and how he felt about his original creation: he was ‘sorry that he had created humans, and it grieved him to his heart’ ( 6.6). But it does not spend a moment over how he felt about reversing his decision to destroy the world, or over how or why he made yet another U-turn.///
I would say we have definitive evidence of God’s recklessness in the Bible.
Not caring of the consequences/not careful, headstrong, hasty.
-tore the veil
-created everything knowing it would all be plunged into sin
-gives us love and hope knowing it may cause us consequences in areas in our life (relationships, hobby’s, ect.)
-doesn’t wait to take us in from our (hasty)
-has a plan and will fulfill it, the lord does what he wants because he is the lord (headstrong).
If the dictionary definition is what you have a problem with, maybe y’all should look harder.
You need to define “relentless” as well. Relentless —adjective
that does not relent; unyieldingly severe, strict, or harsh; unrelenting:
Yikes! I repent! I didn’t think of that word having such negative connotations, probably because it isn’t a word that is so common, in contrast to reckless.
On second thought. Maybe relentless isn’t so bad. Google only gives a definition with negative connotations, but Miriam Webster’s Dictionary gives a more neutral meaning to the word: “showing or promising no abatement of severity, intensity, strength, or pace” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relentless). This is how I’m used to hearing the word used. Similarly, the Collins dictionary lists two distinct meanings: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/relentless.
Answer to criticism of the song “Reckless Love”
I think the Christian community is missing the point of this
perfectly worded song. There are 2 perspectives that we need to be aware of here – God’s perspective and mans perspective. From God’s perspective His Love is Agape Love, completely unconditional and even overwhelming considering the worth of mankind.
The other point of view is mans perspective , which I believe Cory Asbury was expressing in this song. The whole song is from a sinners point of view, who is amazed at Gods love for him. From our logical mind it seems reckless. I myself wonder often why and how God could love me when I was His enemy. Its irrational and illogical to each of us until after we have surrendered to His love and are born again. I believe that this song is exactly what this world needs to hear today. I believe it is a message from God delivered through a man who is trying to explain Gods unbelievable Love in common language so that people will understand the miracle of Him – God is Love. It is one of the most inspirational songs I have ever heard and has found a place in my heart.
I think some in the church are making the words “Reckless Love” a stumbling block and thereby interfering with God’s message to a fallen world that needs His Love more than anything else.
John Crank
johncrank@ymail.com
Livonia, Mi.
John – a very good summary … and your last line is perfect in my opinion “… a fallen world that need His Love more than anything else.” That says it all …
And John – Michigan is well-represented here. I am in Port Huron.
I’ve heard this response from several people. There are 2 perspectives, but Christianity is a faith shaped by God’s revelation. When we sing, it must be based on Scripture.
Here’s an example why I think your argument fails. Some accuse the “God of the OT” of murder because of the actions of Israel when entering the promised land. From the world’s perspective, it’s pretty easy to slip into a wrong understanding and charge God with sin based on those stories. From the world’s perspective, there could be a song written called “Murderous Father.” The blasphemy of such a title should be obvious.
God’s love is reckless only if we don’t understand God’s sovereignty. When we understand the Bible, we have many adjectives we can use, such as overwhelming (in the song), never-ending (in the song), unfathomable, etc. But we cannot rightly say that God has loved us recklessly. In fact, that devalues what God has actually done for us, because God’s plan for all eternity was to redeem a people for the glory of His name. He did this with full knowledge of the future, knowing sin would enter creation, knowing we would be sinners (who else gets redeemed but sinners?), and knowing the cost of redemption would be the death of the eternal Son of God on a brutal Roman cross. The price was fully known; the choice was fully intentional. No RISK involved, but the COST was so great that we cannot comprehend it. Let’s sing about that INTENTIONAL God, and not reduce His actions to “reckless.”
You want to show the world God’s love? Tell them that He knew EXACTLY what it would cost to redeem them and made that sacrifice all the same. THAT is the truth that this fallen world needs to hear preached.
Reply to Michael McEvoy and others:
I think it’s a stretch to use the example of someone writing a song called “Murderous Father” in comparison to “Reckless Love”
But you are right. God is not reckless. But I disagree that this song indicates that “God has loved us recklessly”. Actually the words “reckless Love are oxymoronic regarding Gods Love. Reckless is a word that gets people thinking how crazy His Love is. Remember “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan? Crazy is not an accurate description of Gods love. It’s also oxymoronic. The song “Reckless Love” is merely one man trying to express the extreme all encompassing effect of God’s Love in His and others lives who totally undeserving of it. At first sight to others it may even appear reckless. There are actually no words that can accurately portray or give us a complete understanding or concept of the depth, width, and height and ultimate effect of Gods Love. The song taken as a whole is a description of Gods Love as a story, a dramatization by one person of the extent that God will pursue those that are far from Him. It has grabbed the attention of people’s all over the world and I believe that God is using it as a witness. If you were to exchange the word reckless for another historically conventional word such as awesome or etc, it would lose some of its impact. Gods love in this song is described with 3 adjectives, “overwhelming”,”never ending” and “reckless”. These 3 terms taken as a whole, in fact the complete song taken as a whole, describes Gods Love in a worshipful, awesome reverent manner and is a revelation of Gods Love to a fallen world.
We need to stop pontificating and welcome this song in the spirit it was presented: as an awesome worship song for such a time as this.
Hey John,
I know this post is a bit older now, but I completely agree! Paul actually kind of uses the same type of speech in 1 Corinthians when he talks about how the Gospel is foolishness to the gentiles, but the foolishness of God is wiser then human wisdom. The Gospel can seem foolish because what kind of deity works from the bottom up instead of the top down? I think it’s the same here. From a certain point of view God’s love can seem reckless, but in reality, the recklessness of God is more strategic then we can comprehend.
I also think that when it comes to God’s love, we shouldn’t be surprised if songs like this comes out. Ephesians says that God’s love surpasses knowledge. It is always going to be a struggle to find the right adjectives, it just means that it’s important to keep the word in question within the context of the song.
I did the same thing (looking into the dictionary) after hearing this song. After getting the meaning of reckless I understood the intention of the song. YES. His love is reckless when we think about the events happening in our life. I also remember one of my pastor mentioned in his sermon as “Prodigal Father” for the usual “Prodigal Son” which might look different in the beginning but when I see his intention it makes more sense to me why he called as “Prodigal Son”
But here’s the problem Anonymous, the word “reckless” is a non sequitur when applied to the God of Scripture. It simply does NOT mean what you are saying it means. God working through the events of your life are the OPPOSITE of reckless. He is purposeful and calculated.
As for the whole “prodigal father” assertion by Keller (and others), the issue is again, that people simply don’t know what “prodigal” means. God is not, by any stretch of the imagination, wasteful.
The twisting of the English language in order to get a literary one-up on other writers is one of those post-modernisms that is getting really annoying inside the Christian community. God is neither prodigal (wasteful) nor reckless (thoughtless and inconsiderate to an extreme) in his actions.
The “intention” of the song, as far as I can tell, was to write something edgy even if it meant fostering a false doctrine. God does not break down any door, leave the 99, or undertake many of the other actions that Asbury says that God does. God waits in the driveway for the prodigal to return. He never leaves His people at risk, and in fact, he knocks at the door and waits for someone to invite Him in.
This is the problem I have with the entire thrust of the lyric of this song in that it attempts to ascribe to God actions and attitudes that are foreign to His character and what He has revealed about Himself.
I love the catchy melody of Reckless Love but I find the lyrics to be highly, highly problematic on levels that go way beyond the use of the word “reckless”.
The word “reckless” is derived from the archaic Germanic “reck,” which means “to take heed of.” The word “reckless,” therefore, only means to not take heed, or to ignore. Didn’t God ignore the consequences of His actions? If someone told me I had to sacrifice my child to save somebody else, I don’t know that I could make that sacrifice, and I doubt anyone would fault me for it. God, knowing the consequences, didn’t care about how serious those consequences would be. He didn’t heed them, and instead saved us.
I will also point out that the father in the Prodigal story did not, in fact, wait in the driveway for his son to return. “But while he was still a long way off, the father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.” Luke 15:20. He RAN to his son, while he was a long way off. He didn’t sit there with his arms crossed, forcing his son to come crawling the entire way back. Instead, he came after his son with everything in his power to bring him home again.
In this, doesn’t a reckless love just mean a love that ignores all else to run to the beloved?
Thank you Andrew for taking the time to share your thoughts on “Reckless Love.” It’s been a topic of conversation among my friends as well lately. My girlfriend knows Cory Asbury and there is no doubt in her mind that he loves the Lord. Based on his explanation of this song though, as well as his other music and association with Bethel, I’m concerned that the God he worships and loves is not the God of the Bible but rather a man-made idol.
The song is actually on the radio right now as I write this and it saddens me to listen to it because it’s both a very powerful and misleading song. This song isn’t popular because it’s poorly written. It’s popular because it is artistically very well done, albeit also great at scratching itching ears. Cory Asbury is without a doubt a very talented musician and my prayer for him is that God allows him to recognize the damage and division his theology is causing.
The definition I think the writers of this song were going for is that reckless means simply doing something crazy without thinking…God did indeed do something crazy, dying for a world full of sinners, but of course His love is so intense for us, it was reckless because he never had to spend any time thinking about it, He just did it!
Comment to Andrew K. Gabriel 4/27/18
Well said. God didn’t need to think about giving His Agape Love to us because He had committed it to us before Creation. But it is crazy and reckless from our point of view – not His, because He already knows the outcome. The song “Reckless Love” is one of those songs that when I sing it, I am filled with Joy. I realize what Christ did for me, I recognize that He pursued me, I remember the shadows He lit up, The walls He kicked down, and the lies He tore down in His pursuing me. When I sing all the words to this song, including “Reckless” I am overwhelmed with the reality of His Love for me and the miraculous things He did to save me. Each time I sing this song, I feel His presence (Psalm 22:3) and am overwhelmed with thanksgiving for my salvation.
Many of the people that commented on the song referred to Cory Asbury and other Christian song writers as mere writers and artists. However, in the spiritual realm, I think most people can agree that God uses some of these Christian artists/writers to deliver His messages to all mankind. Therefore, I think some of these artist/writers could be considered as His modern day Prophets – that is according to the definition of a Prophet.
Hence, when we analyze and criticize Christian songs, shouldn’t we rely more on the guidance of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:7-10) and the Gift of discernment to guide us as to the spiritual content and source(as possibly God?), and not lean so much on the dictionary’s exact legal
meaning of their words?
John Crank
Interesting how many people try to justify a song just because they like it. If people think God is reckless, then they really don’t know who God truly is. God is not reckless because God is not human. This song is not a Christian worship song and is not of God. It’s a song that tries to change who God is so people in the world will think God is cool and trendy and someone who is like them.
This is heresy, blasphemy, sinfully of the devil.
Wake up Christians because God is seeking those who truly know Him, not those who love the world, which this song is really alluding to. It’s a song that tries to bring the ways of the world into the church because that’s what sells songs. If you truly sang about God exactly the truth, that song wouldn’t sell like his has. This proves where the church is, that it’s too much in the world and not enough in the truth.
I doubt very much they would be singing this song in heaven so why should we be singing it now?
The truth is, the church has lost sensitivity to the spirit and have allowed anything they want to come into the church. This shows how far the church truly is from God.
God will judge us on what we know and what we have ignored and our works will be the evidence of this.
Sensitivity of the spirit shows our relationship to God. If we continually allow things God doesn’t approve of, we will slowly loose sensitivity of the spirit and will eventually not hear God’s voice. Then we will live by our own way not by God’s word.
Christians need to start showing who God is by not allowing anything of the world to enter into the church, because the church is the body of Christ, not the body of the world.
We are to stand for truth and righteousness, not for emotional satisfaction.
Daniel, you make a very good point about painting God as having human fallibilities (which is what recklessness actually is).
What concerns me just as much as the redefinition of that word (which is what people focus on) is the message of the chorus and bridge.
The chorus first asserts this false teaching about recklessness. Then it states that God is “chasing me down”, which God doesn’t do in the way Asbury describes. What He actually does is stand at the door and knocks. Put another way He waits for our return when we were yet “prodigal sons”.
Line two also has the false teaching about leaving us (the 99) at risk – which God promises He would never do.
Then in the bridge we are told the lengths to which God goes using phrases like “no wall you won’t kick down” and so on. Again, this is just not the way Scripture says God works. God laid the groundwork for our salvation at the Cross. This, and the resurrection were planned by God from the beginning of time. He set the plan in motion and then gave each of us the free will to choose whether to avail ourselves of the gift of salvation or not.
Should we choose to avoid God by remaining in the “shadows” or hiding at the top of a “mountain” God allows us to do just that – even if that results in eternal separation from Him. But Asbury’s lyric teaches something different – apparently God kicks down every wall and tears down every lie.
Does God really do this in practice? I maintain that clearly He does not or else everyone would be saved. Yet we are explicitly taught by Jesus in Matthew 7 the opposite:
“Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
How can this be the case given Asbury’s lyric? Only a few?
To be sure some of his lyrics are spot on (the first and second verses are great) but meanwhile, much of the rest of the song has either debatable or outright false doctrine. Which is really quite sad given the popularity of the song.
I will say that while it seems that I am defending the song, I’m really just trying to argue the counter-points in order to make up my mind. That said…
A) Reckless comes from the archaic Germanic “reck,” which means “to pay heed.” So reckless literally means to NOT pay heed or to ignore something. Didn’t God ignore the consequences of redeeming us (the suffering and death of His Son)?
B) Your point about knocking at the door is largely arguing semantics. If I run as far as I can from God, I can turn and He’s still there. In that way, isn’t He chasing me down (or at least doesn’t it appear so)? We’re dealing with imperfect metaphors here. Let’s also not forget that in the Prodigal Son parable, the father doesn’t wait at home for his son to return; he RUNS out to greet him in the road.
C) The lyrics say, “leaves the ninety-nine.” Nothing more, nothing less. I guess I don’t see how it implies the ninety-nine are at risk.
D) You quote the lyrics, “there’s no wall you won’t kick down,” but then you construct a straw man that says God will kick down EVERY wall to save everyone, regardless of the individual’s choice. This is not the message. Instead, you have a narrator/speaker who has turned back to God and realized that God has broken down every barrier that might keep the speaker from a relationship with God. Every phrase you refer to above is sealed with, “coming after me.” not “coming after us.”
E) You refer to “the few.” This song explicitly refers only to one person – the narrator/speaker. It doesn’t get much more “few” than one.
Maybe before making assumptions you should consult the author of the song and see exactly what he meant by “Reckless Love”-
https://www.multitracks.com/blog/new-from-cory-asbury-reckless-love/
So we could use any word to describe God as long as we know what we mean. So you can say Gods love is aggressive and violent and that would be okay with you. But hang on, I don’t really mean what those words mean I’m just using them to mean something else. Lol. That’s what most christians are like this days.
Christians are reckless “thoughtless, careless and heedless”
We could then say Gods love is sensual, erotic, and sexual and be using these words to convey another meaning. Is it okay as long as we know what we are meaning? We’re not using those words to mean what they really mean, just another meaning that we think they mean.
Why don’t we just say God is wicked as in
“Our God is a wicked God He reigns, from heaven above with wisdom power and love our God is a killer God”
I’m sure that wouldn’t be in your worship service, so why is saying God is reckless………
Stephen, the author outright states in his column that he knows what Asbury says he intended, so may I suggest that condescending to Andrew in this way, ends up being unintentionally ironic.
To your point, Asbury’s explanation actually makes this whole thing worse. He rationalizes his writing choices by saying that, from an uninformed human perspective, it’s possible that people might feel that God is reckless in how He expresses His love.
So apparently he expects the Christian community to affirm what the uninformed feel about God? Not only is this a terrible thing to ask Christians to verbalize in a worship service but it doesn’t even make sense if you think about Asbury’s specific defense.
Do those who are ignorant of how God’s love works TRULY think it’s “reckless” in the first place? I would argue that very few people who don’t know Scripture, label God’s love as reckless. Lots of other things but not reckless.
So whatever Asbury “intended”, at the end of the day he ends up giving voice to a sentiment that is not widely held and worse yet, is ignorant of the God of the Bible.
“He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being.”
Wait! God is Omnipotent. WHO is threatening his “safety, comfort and well-being.” This is totally laughable.
Reckless Love is a common theme at Bethel Church. My observation is that Bethel, theologically, tends to bring God down to man’s level, while at the same time elevating mans to God’s level. It’s a subtle twist on the WoF “little god’s” doctrine with a little Manifest SOns of God thrown in for good measure.
I don’t think Corry is being imprecise. He stated it well.:
“He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being.”
I agree that God is certainly not “unconcerned with the consequences of His actions,” though Asbury does quality that by saying “with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being.” This latter phrase I would agree with. Most contemporary theologians would say that God is, at least in some sense, passible. That is, God at least suffers in as much as God grieves the sin of humanity and the unwillingness of humanity to follow God’s will. Now, many theologians will qualify that by saying that in some other senses God is impassible, in that God does not suffer in the same way that human’s do and God remains omnipotent–God is not in any way injured or incapacitated–but God is still affected by humanity’s response to the divine will. I would tend to think it would be fair to say that God’s grieving is something that could be described as God allowing discomfort.
The Apostle Paul uses similarly subversive language – “For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Cor 1:25).
Is any part of God foolish or weak? Or is Paul using words in a way different than how they are normally used?
I don’t have an issue with the idea that God doesn’t care about the consequences of His pursuit of us. We already knew that – He loved us so much that he would send His son to die for us. He counted the cost, one which most of us would never deem worthwhile, and He paid it anyway. He continues to pursue us, even though we continually turn away from Him.
Sounds pretty reckless to me. And it reminds me of another “reckless” term that applies to how David worshiped the Lord – with reckless abandon.
I read it and sing it in the context, and the word entered my mind so beautifully How God Love me recklessly. Deep inside I know He cares and so love the world. He died for me as if he worship me. A person who would died for someone must have love him or her so much as worshipping that person. I know I should not used that word, but what word? Someone who came down all the way from heaven. Someone who would SACRIFICE HIS BELOVED SON! What would I call that. Gather all the theologians in the universe and tell me, WHO ARE YOU THAT YOU GAVE ONLY ONLY BEGOTTEN SON ? What in the universe have you done? I am finite and gone as a smoke just like any of those theologians who will never fathom your love
God wasn’t reckless in sending Jesus because God knew the future already. It was perfectly planned from the beginning. No one with half a brain would do anything before assessing the situation and the requirements for it. God is supremely greater than we ever could be. To put God on human level is what most people are doing when they use reckless to describe Him. People don’t seem to understand how righteous and powerful and majestic God is. To use negative degrading words to describe God is a sin, no matter what people think or try to justify.
As someone mentioned about the foolishness of God, well actually the point being said by Paul was this, if God even had a weakness or foolishness it would be so far greater than our wisest person. He didn’t say it was actually what God was. But this song, it actually says God’s love is reckless, a totally different comment. The bible never used such degrading language of God. Neither should we sing it. Can you imagine someone going around singing a song about you personally saying you are stupid?? Imagine what you would think, would you be thinking they are speaking highly of you or would you think they are defaming you??
It takes a great deal of twisting to make Paul’s words okay and Cory’s words not. Paul says “the foolishness of God” and Cory says the “reckless love of God.” Foolish? Weak? Those words are very clear in their meaning, and cannot be applied to God… and yet they are. So there must be some room to consider the character of God. Reckless is a word that literally means, “does not pay heed” (“reck” is an archaic Germanic word meaning, “to pay heed”). I, too, had issue with the idea that God did something without knowing the consequences, but although you can find it in a few dictionaries, that’s not in the original meaning of the word – reckless means God didn’t stop, even knowing the consequences. He paid no heed to the consequences of redeeming us.
Again, I come back to the concept of worshiping with reckless abandon – paying no heed to the thoughts of everyone around you. I imagine David dancing before the Lord, don’t you?
Dave k said this,
God, knowing the consequences, didn’t care about how serious those consequences would be. He didn’t heed them, and instead saved us.
But actually this is still wrong because in saying God didn’t care about how serious the consequences is saying
1 – God is careless
2 – The consequences weren’t important to God
3 – God doesn’t care what He does
4 – God doesn’t think about things
5 – God doesn’t know the future
I’ll reply in reverse order, because… why not?
5 – God doesn’t know the future. I think you misunderstood what I meant by “didn’t care.” This is not a “I don’t know, I don’t care,” sort of a thing. It’s more of a “I’ve examined every angle and I know it’s going to hurt. I don’t care,” type of situation. So God did (and does) indeed know the future. Knowing that makes His sacrifice that much more unbelievable – there couldn’t have even been the hope of *maybe* everything working out for the better.
4 – God doesn’t think about things. Again, see above. “I don’t care” doesn’t have to mean “I don’t care to even think about it.”
3 – God doesn’t care what He does. This is an interesting statement. Do you mean this in a general apathetic way? If so, I’d wholeheartedly disagree. When I say God doesn’t care about consequences, it means that He cares so much (for God so loved) that He ignored those consequences (He gave His only begotten Son).
2 – The consequences weren’t important to God. Well, I suppose that’s one skewed way you could look at it. Again, though, when I say God “didn’t heed,” I just meant that the exceptionally serious consequences didn’t stop Him. Were they unimportant because they didn’t stop Him? I don’t know. I guess redemption was more important? It’s an interesting argument that I’ll have to consider.
1 – God is careless. I suppose in the literal sense, I would agree with this. God cared more about redemption of mankind and *cared less* about His comfort and safety (and before people jump on about God’s omnipotence, which I’m not disputing, I’m talking about God the Son’s comfort and safety, which surely we can agree was compromised). Beyond that, we’ve circled back around to the “reckless” term, which means only exactly what it means to each person.
Imagine your best friend comes to you, gushing about this pearl he’s found in a field. He’s preparing to sell his house, his car, his 401K, his wife’s jewelry, and empty out his kids’ college funds to buy the field, all to have the pearl. What would you tell your friend? Would you consider this behavior careless? Reckless, even? Did this man consider the consequences? Does he care what he does? Did he think it through? Does he even know what will happen if he goes through with this (admittedly the man in the parable would not know the future, so I’ll concede this point)? But he still pursues the pearl with everything he has because of the value it holds to him.
Careless? Reckless? Maybe. I don’t have the answers, but I like to argue both angles to see if I can drill down closer.
YES, THANK YOU!
I found your page here by my own Google search on “GOD does NOT have a reckless love, He has a RELENTLESS LOVE”, because I am tired of hearing songs use this offensive word “Reckless” when describing a characteristic of GOD, “Love”. So I’m happy to see I’m NOT the only one. I’m also glad to see that we’re not the only ones by the comments you have received.
GOD is definitely Passionate about every one He’s created, And He’s A VERY Personal GOD, as His word Reveals clearly, but He’s completely Far from ever being out of control, thoughtless, or careless, as “reckless” means.
I get the sense that “reckless ” has come to mean “despite the consequences and beyond human reason ” to Christians. As in: God sent Jesus despite the fact that Jesus would die for our sins, which is beyond our reasoning. We cannot grasp how a flawed humanity would be chosen over the perfect son of God.
God’s love is beyond (human reason), and despite (but not without considering) consequences.
While most people who act without reason and despite consequences are reckless, God, whom is not human and has his own reasoning is not.
Excellent observation bro I wouldn’t sing it or download a song that sings About my God being reckless in any fashion it’s being sung all over our Pentecostal church’s without careful thought to what it’s meaning is… your fill in words of suggestion are Perfedt and honour a perfect God!! I’ve downloaded many bethel songs and after careful thought and listening Realize with your observations they are teaching a doctrine of their own….indoctrinating to be honest and I no longer sing or listen to their line of reasons they place in any of their music or songs which are their choice of music alone
I think sometimes we.put so much into something that has no eternal purpose or doesn’t have a heaven or hell objective,a worship artist or worshipper sings from experience and deliverance struggle and pain and shame you could say it’s reckless for a father to sacrifice his son for a rebellious people, however in doing that it made them love Him even more ,when they understood that death was final without it.Music reveals emotion and I don’t see what God isn’t I see what he is HE IS EVERYTHING
As a worship leader I find it hard these days to find songs that don’t have some kinda of water down gospel. I agree the justification of the Sheppard and the sheep parable is falsely used. Moreover, Jesus was trying to convey that the 99 were already saved, they were HIS, spiritually in HIS care, nothing or no one could ever take them away from Him. Going to look for the “lost” sheep was Jesus telling us that God wants All of us, down to the last human on earth. Jesus died for ALL of us, even the one that nobody could find, but the Sheppard Jesus found them. That’s not “Reckless love,” that’s PERFECT LOVE beyond our imagination!
Great song, but this word reckless also bothers me. Nothing about God ‘s character is reckless & I personally don’t feel comfortable singing it. God is intentional & everything He does has meaning. It’s sort of belittling. Trust me this is not the only song that lowers the glory of who God is. If we change the meaning of this word, what keeps us from slightly changing other words? The Bible, God’s Word, is pretty clear about how things will be in the last days. Be true to yourself
I’ve read some of the notes of criticism of this lyric choice before as well. I was curious for those of you that feel strongly about this, would you levy the same criticism to calling God’s love crazy? (Maybe a book. for instance, allows less room for misunderstanding – but the word would not be good for a song?) How about when the bible calls God jealous? These two word’s technical definitions are at least as negative as reckless, so I’m curious what the comparisons and distinctions are in your opinions.
Especially crazy: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crazy
If a “worship” song causes this much discussion (raises some descernment alarms) maybe we should move on to a song that doesn’t? Why are Bethel & Hellsong always being questioned about theology? Well, maybe there’s a reason, Google Bethel & Hillsong and pray for descernment, I think you’ll have your answer. Me persoanally, will never sing songs written by either of those groups, it’s an open door to suck in our kids. Our kids like their songs, then attend their camps, then they get exposed to accult practices like GRAVE SOAKING, GOD’S GLORY CLOUDS, ETC, ETC, AND OTHER NEW AGE GARBAGE. For our battles are not against……..choose wisely who let inside your church walls. ALL the glory to God, not us!
Agree with you 100%. Be careful what is being presented to us. It should be based on the truth in God’s word and by so doing change us into becoming more Christlike as we mature in the faith,
what about the beginning of this song where he says before he spoke a word thay he the god of this world . the god of music was singing over him . this is a love song to the god of this world and music . and he is lucifer .whom these guys secretly sing about . he is slick .The Fathers love is not reckless nor is there any singing involved in becoming born again . this song sounds great . but its not about the Creator .FATHER ABBA . YAHWEH, YAHOVAH .Or the Lord YASUAH the CHRIST. . or in theologian. the God of Abrham .Isaac , and Jacob.. this is how the world is getting they dont preach the parables of the Christ nor preach take up your cross daily. . I am glad others see this for what it is . may peace be with you.
Trey – I respect your opinion, but you might consider Zephaniah 3:17(ESV) The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness;he will quiet you by his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.
There is no mention in the lyrics of Reckless Love of the “god of music” – and I am thrilled to know that (according to His word in Zeph 3:17) that God is indeed singing over me.
There’s some merit to this, what Trey is saying. Everyone do some research…I think he’s right.
Zephaniah 3:17
he could have used weightless love . he is probably a luciferian singing of the god of music.
I can totally agree with you brother. Praise and worship is not about us being satisfied emotionally, but it’s sole purpose is to praise the one true God and His glory!
Firstly, I am glad that as an AoG person myself that we have good strong theological teachers in our fold. Often I feel that other denominations tend to see us as ‘Christian-lite’ insofar as theology is concerned.
Having said that, I have to express my surprise that we are giving so much attention to one word in this song (126 comments and multiple articles on this??). While we would not sing songs that are of bad theology, songs are not primarily written to teach theology. They can, of course, and we find many such examples in the Bible. BUT in this song and many of today’s song is about expressing passion and heart – and this song is about emotion, adoration and love. Not whether God’s is reckless or not. In doing so, we become Pharisee like – looking at the written word but missing the Living Word. Its song for the moment, it will pass. Don’t like it? Then don’t sing it. But don’t run it down. King David’s worship was highly “inappropriate” and the one who criticized his inappropriate worship style was barren. God is looking at our hearts for worship. No one is trying to build a church or doctrine just based on this song. It expresses the absolute unconditional love of God and I’m sure the God Shepherd did not abandon the 99 if the were not safe anyway. He loves all 100 of them, is able to care for all as he is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. We, as finite humans, just can’t quite comprehend it.
I think Ive read every comment, but some things werent mentioned. The bible is clear that correct doctrine is essential, & that so too is the need to correct that which is doctrinally incorrect or can stumble anyone, & I’m extremely concerned that those at Bethel who are supposed to be responsible for the younger ones, didnt bother to check the words of this young man’s song & ask him to change the word ‘reckless’ to something that agrees with God’s view of Himself & that wouldnt stumble anyone.
Though I believe all their intents were sincerely good, & we all make mistakes whilst having good intentions, but that doesnt change the fact that the bible requires kind & wise correction. It doesnt matter what we think, its about what God thinks! He chooses to be described with words that have positive meanings, & He cares very much about which words we use, esp when they influence millions of people & cause them to constantly repeat & declare them in unity in song.
It grieves my heart that Christians think good intentions are enough to make something right, though this is in opposition to the whole Bible.Too many think that just knowing God loves us is enough, yet God clearly does NOT think that & goes to great length to require us to learn His ways & what He loves & hates.. His love & ways are so perfect that He hates whats wrong as passionately as He loves what is right, & He wants us to be as He is.!
Too many Christians do not even know about or understand what the fear of God is & what that means,& this debate makes that very clear. This debate should be causing people to question & to check & see what God says in His written word about Him being Honoured His way.
Whether people have sincerely good intentions or not, doesnt make their mistakes harmless, so they need guidance & correction & to know God’s ways..
God is far more good & kind & merciful than we could ever be, yet being those things isnt at odds against His requirement that we fear Him & obey Him! People mistake His merciful love for us as meaning we can treat Him casually, but we cant’ because He’s still Almighty God!
. God expects us to change to become like Him, & doesnt change to become like us just because we mean well.
God says “wicked” is bad despite 99% of young people being told by the world that it means ‘good’, & if people call God “wicked” He’s not going to be ok with that, esp if millions in churches agree in declaration & song.
This song says God’s love is reckless (‘irresponsible’, ‘thoughtless’, ‘careless’, etc} so despite the writer’s & other’s sincerely good heart intentions, the fact is that God hates recklessness so we shouldnt call Him that nor encourage others to do the same because we say we mean something different than what the word means. its a NEGATIve statement no matter how people would prefer to interpret it.
The write & others meant well, but didnt use wisdom. Its as simple as being humble enough to change the name & say sorry for accidentally stumbling so many. Conscience doesnt allow many of us to refer to God that way, so that word in the song takes our focus away from God, & causes confusion for many.
The Lord Jesus, while speaking with the woman in Samaria, made it clear that we are to worship God in spirit and in TRUTH. God is first of all holy. His love is holy. He is eternal. His love is eternal. He is perfect. How can God’s love be reckless, when it is eternal, eternally holy, and eternally perfect? “As David said, before I was fashioned in the womb, You knew me” (read Romans 8:29-30). Such holy and purposeful love could never, ever go on a reckless rampage. Even when we go astray, He already knew this would happen, and has planned in eternity past how He would deal with us and our sin. Someone in my church’s music ministry said the songwriter wrote the song in reference to the shepherd leaving the flock to rescue the one errant sheep. Let’s look at God’s Word to clarify what He says. In Luke 2, while shepherds (plural) watched their flock (singular) by night… One shepherd leaving the flock isn’t recklessly leaving the 99 to chase down 1. There are other shepherds also watching them. Something to consider.
I lead a church worship group and we try and think carefully about the theology in the songs we introduce. A few friends from other churches had posted the Reckless Love song on Facebook and I felt uncomfortable about the words so googled “Is God’s love reckless?” and found your really helpful article. Thank you. You’ve confirmed my reservations with real clarity but you’ve done it in a very balanced and sensitive way.
I’m glad you found it helpful.
When I sing it..I can’t say reckless. I sing endless love of God..2 syllables.
I was concerned as my church sang this song today. I therefore checked the dictionary for “reck” and “reckless”. I quite understand the heart’s intent of the composer BUT I cannot sing it!
I would be uncomfortable to say God, or His love is reckless.
It is not too late to substitute ENDLESS for reckless. It rhymes and is theologically correct.
God’s love for mankind (agape), He went above and beyond to show His divine love for us. We with a carnal mind would call His love reckless because He did what no one else would have done for us, in that while we were yet sinners, He died for us. He paid the penalty of sin for us. The songwriter call it reckless love because we have limitations when it comes to our love for each other.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 English Standard Version (ESV)
Godlessness in the Last Days
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, ►reckless◄, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
Romans 5:6,8 (ESV)
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 8 but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
I am so thankful for the conversations below! It helped me to consider the lyrics and deal with what was bothering me hour after hour hearing this song overplayed on the stations! Honestly, after surviving an abusive relationship with a “Christian man” and being “stalked”- the idea of a “reckless” all powerful God, chasing me and knocking down walls, “coming after me” again and again- does not feel redemptive, but kindly coercive at first with the intent to ultimately control and “overwhelm”. Those are not nice thoughts and more like triggers! I seriously hope I am the ONLY person in the world feeling that negative association! And I really hope this song goes away soon! Thank you Dr. Andrew! I feel better now!
I prayed and I believe the Lord showed me more that is biblically incorrect about the song. God stands at the door and knocks. Politely. God speaks in a still small voice. Gently. God draws all people to him. Calmly. When we leave him on purpose, he lets us go and watches for our return, then runs when he sees us coming back. Jesus says my sheep know my voice and they follow me. He leads. We choose to follow. —He doesn’t kick down walls. But patiently waits to be let in. When you chase someone they run away. God speaks gently to us, relentlessly, and waits with open arms for us to come to him. And if the world understands “reckless” as not caring about the consequences, then we should not be using that word regarding God.
Good word!
Amen!
My problem is the song lyrics, but more than that is the origination of the song. Bethel ministries operates in complete deception and I can’t bring myself to like the song based on that knowledge. Is this a bad attitude?
I think you are spot on and totally agree with you. How long wil heresy be preached and it will infiltrate other areas of the ministry such a the music,etc.?
Please Read Andrew Gabriel.
The writer of this song did not mean God was literally Reckless (because God knows everything and has a perfect plan), but rather he meant that God would do anything and everything for his children because of his never-ending overwhelming love for us, so much so that he knew about our debt of sin and didn’t hesitate to die on a cross for us being scorned, tortured, and put to shame for simply being innocent and truthful because he loves is so much.
Dear Andrew, last Sunday we sang “Reckless Love” for the first time at my church here in Scotland UK. As I read and listened to the words, I felt an unease in my spirit and so I decided to do some research, coming across your site in the process. Thank you for what you have written. I love to worship the Lord and sometimes just have to dance too! But, I have decided that this song is one I do not want to engage with. I am learning not to be afraid of staying with what I believe is right for me. There are times when worship songs come to mind when I need comforting or want to praise the Lord for His amazing Creation as I walk the lanes near home. He uses some of the old hymns too, even the old “Praise God from whom all blessings flow, praise Him all creatures here below……..”, something we sang at the end of every day at junior school. What a wonderful seed was sown in my little life then.
So, thank you for helping me to make my decision. May the Lord bless you and give you much wisdom from above. Heather.
It seems many people share your feelings, Heather. Thanks for the encouragement and for sharing.
I agree with much of what you’ve written. But all your arguments against “reckless” apply equally well to the word “foolish,” which Paul uses twice in 1 Cor 1 – to describe the gospel and to describe God! : – ) “21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ….25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.” Would you suggest we change the words of 1 Cor because all the proper definitions of “foolish” are VERY inappropriate to apply to God? : – )
Dave- The context is quite different between what Paul says in 1 Cor and what the song says. If we read 1 Cor 1 verse 17 all the way through to verse 31, then in verses 25 and 27 it seems pretty clear that Paul is saying that God’s ways seem foolish *to some non-Christians*, but not that he is saying that God is literally foolish. I’m sure if we asked Paul if God is foolish, or if God’s love is foolish, or if the Gospel is foolish, he would say no.
By contrast, the “Reckless Love” song doesn’t give the impression that it is only claiming that God appears to be reckless to non-Christians. Instead, when I’ve heard and read the author of the song explain the song, he tries to explain how it is right and justified to refer to God as reckless. For example, he appeals to the parable of the lost sheep to suggest that is shows that God is reckless, or at least that God’s love is reckless.
So, I don’t think the comparison between the song and Paul’s use of “foolishness” helps justify the song in any way. Peace.
Reckless can also mean ‘going against something’. Example: going against a thought, belief or something of that nature. So to say Jehovah’s love is reckless would be correct if it is meant in the way ‘God’s love is reckless because he loves us when we think we don’t deserve it or when we think we’ve sinned too much.’ Or when we just don’t want it. He goes against our wants by coming after us anyway. He rebels against our misguided haman beliefs of what love should be and loves us unconditionally anyway.
Thank you for this. I have felt the same way about this song. I cannot sing it. I do change the word when it comes on the radio and I find myself singing it. God’s love is NOT reckless. Nothing associated with him is reckless. Nothing he does, has done, or had made is reckless.
Perhaps we could learn something from our Jewish brethren in their reverence & awe for God in their reluctance to even use his name incorrectly and in fear type G-d. Perhaps a step too far, but do we fear him & take him seriously? Does not Jesus request that we worship him in spirit & in TRUTH. Let us be careful not to misrepresent him.
Song aside, what hurts my heart the most is when I read comments on other sites about those who dislike this song for legitimate reasons being called lost, unbelievers who do not know Jesus. Please remember the primary avenue we know Jesus is through his word and not through Christian media. Dear God, please do not let the Church become like the world in its quest for “mandatory conformity”.
Hi – this is a really good critique – non judgemental and fair. It’s a bit like ‘conscious’ rap – sounds cooler than conscientious; on the other hand, a man whose sweat is like droplets of blood, is clearly being pushed to the brink of caving in to temptation. He had no special power to resist, just faith and will – same as any man. To trust everything to a man is arguably pretty reckless; and for what purpose? A world for whom he had to say: Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. That it worked out, knowing what we do of human weakness, is utterly astonishing.
God has many attributes, and the song attempts to give God the additional attribute of being reckless. NOT
When someone says. “I think” instead of going to the Word of God that is dangerous. I looked up reckless in several translations and wherever the word was used it was in a negative way. So Bethel was amiss for allowing the author to present the song in its form.
I think you guys have missed the point of what the song is saying. God’s love to us is not reckless, it is reckless in that He gave all of himself for each and everyone of us, whether we give ourselves to Him or not He still died for us. Cory is saying God’s love is reckless toward Himself, in that while we were yet enemies He still suffered and died for us.
It is not just the term “reckless” that concerns me. It is the fact that “Chases me down” and “kicking down walls”, portrays God as being aggressive towards us. When instead the Bible portrays Christ as the gentle shepherd. He has come to seek and to save those who are lost as Luke 19:10 tells us. He is not hunting us down.
Thanks for sharing. Its interesting how the song strikes people differently. I haven’t really thought of the “chases me down” or the “kicking down walls” as showing aggression, but more so as God making effort to have a relationship with us.
Yes very true LS.
I just walked out of a church this morning after struggling with this opening song at the local Baptist Church. I was so indignant and insulted to hear God and his love described as ‘reckless’. God is FAITHFUL and NOT reckless. Why wasnt I surprised when I found it was a Bethel Church song. This song is full of heresy. God is not just a God of love but of wrath also. The song is giving a wrong slant on how the New Testament describes a believers relationship with God and Christ AND Gods relationship with us. This song is actually blasphemous and any true Christian would not sing it. End of story.
I think it means that love won’t reck
Ha! Likely 🙂
Hi Andrew, thanks for your post but I’m confused on your line of thinking. You obviously feel as I do that reference to leaving the 99 is a reference to what the author thinks is God’s reckless love and then you point out (correctly) that this is simply wrong and that the parable doesn’t show a reckless love. I would add that the point of the passage in Luke for example is that of the rejoicing over 1 sinner who repents compared to 99 who don’t need repentance – which probably speaks to the Pharisees and others like them. So I don’t understand how you go from speaking against what the author clearly implies about God’s love being reckless and then him explicitly stating God’s love is reckless to then going on to say he doesn’t mean reckless but instead means relentless. I would add to this point by directing you to what Cory Asbury himself says about the song in his own blog – that God’s love is reckless. So I don’t see how your conclusion follows from your premise. If you read his blog it seems he gives God human attributes. He is creating God in his image. Why is this a problem – because recklessness, even a reckless love is antithetical to God’s sovereignty. Perhaps you want him to mean relentless, but unfortunately I think it’s pretty clear he means reckless.
Thanks for your reply, Don. I would say the inconsistency is in Asbury’s explanation and those who defend his explanation. People typically argue, first, that God is not reckless in the usual meaning of the term, but then to defend the use of the term they _sometimes_ actually argue that God is reckless. This is specifically the case when it comes to the allusion to the 99 passage. At the same time, though, no one in the discussion wants to say God was irresponsible or careless, which is really what it means to be reckless.
I didn’t recognize the inconsistency right away, though, as you have. And so, as you noted, I think there is some inconsistency even in what I wrote above.
Thank you for all of your comments. Well written and thoughtful. This song has hit the top charts here in the United States and one day while I was listening to a podcast sermon in Ireland, they were singing “The Reckless Love of God”!
Because I have a few friends who do not like the song because of the word reckless, I have often pondered over the reasons which is why I was reading your comments.
I thought that the word relentless works well. When we sing worship songs, we often take a three syllable word in the song and it kind of sounds like a two syllable word when you say it quickly so it really works! Thank you for that.
My friends who don’t care for the song have a good point and I care about what they believe so this gives me something more to consider when I consider their feelings so again, thank you. Have a great day!
Wow, after leaving my comment, I read two or three others which I had not done at first and didn’t realize how many comments this song has evoked! I like to think with my own mind while keeping God’s mind in mind, and His is millions more greater than mine (or anyone else’s) will ever be.
Thanks for sharing.
Agree with your assessment. When I sing this song, I use the word “precious” instead of reckless.
My God is not reckless in anyway.I think some people who call themselves christian do not know God at all.They only like what makes them feel good and if a person really knows God they will not say that He has reckness love.I think its a shame for bethel music to allow their name on this music.It shows that they are only in it for money.Same as for the man who wrote this song.How could you really know God and say His love is reckless?You can’t.I don’t care if he leads praise and worship in many churches its not of God our creator.Some people just sing and if it makes their flesh feel good they think oh I know its God because it made me cry how stupid is that?I really heard someone say that.Where are God,s real people.Where are real christians people who respect God and would never call Hom reckless?
Thanks for this piece. I think you have said everything. But let me say (I had that idea before I head the song) knowing who I am, my antecedence God still died for me. The Bible say while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. I tried to look at it from human perspective, who would know that a person will definitely steal in the place where he is applying to get a job and the only thing standing between the person and him getting the job is just a guarantor filling a form and sending back to the company and the person did and this person that fill the from is a well respected person in the society who has a name to protect. Is that not what Jesus did. Please i want to understand.
I can agree with a lot of what you are saying. I guess my problem is that it comes from Bethel Church and the teachings of the church are heretical from what I have read and are not correct theology (i.e. dancing on graves, fire tunnels, etc). Research what the church stands for. So the question for me is do we(i.e. Christians) want to support something knowing that the teachings for the church are heretical and make other people wanting to be Christians stumble or saying one thing for teaching but musically saying something else theologically?
Nice job picking and choosing the definition of “reckless”. Try this one on for size: utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action. It doesn’t have to be careless. Use that definition, and see how well this fits: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son – unconcerned for the consequences!
God’s love, in the first half of the sentence, is reckless in the second. The action was giving His Son. What were the consequences?
Before we know the final outcome, we know that Jesus didn’t want it, because he knew the consequences: Matthew 26:39 – “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
In spite of the consequences, He followed through with the will of the Father: He was arrested (Luke 22:54), mocked and beaten (Luke 22:63), wrongly accused and tried (John 19), mocked and crowned with thorns (Matthew 27:29), spat upon (Matthew 27:30) cursed (Galatians 3:13), abandoned by God in his time of greatest need (Matthew 27:46), and finally, though he himself was perfect, took on the sins of the world (1 Peter 2:24). Oh, and then he died.
“Relentless” and “passionate” don’t cary that kind of meaning!
That may not be the definition you chose, but that is the definition of reckless! It doesn’t always have a negative connotation, and certainly not just because the rest of the world sees it that way. They also have different ideas of what it means to misuse the Lord’s name, defining marriage, and a great many other topics. I’ll not allow them to define the language I use in worship!
I have no problem with your definition, but I would still say God is *never* “utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action.” There is a big difference between “in spite of” (which you said later) and “utterly unconcerned.” So, yes, God sent Jesus “in spite of” the cost, but God did it precisely because God *was* concerned about the consequences–to save us.
Reckless love. A kind of love that pursues an undeserving sinner. An undeserved love. A love that goes to great lengths despite the object of that love being a rebellious jerk. A love that is often taken for granted and isn’t reciprocated. Illogical love! Passionate, relentless love!
Poetic license, baby. Love this song.
Very well said Andrew. I like your attitude and balance about the matter – and your humor too 🙂
The word “reckless” is not found in the KJV of the Bible. In the NIV, it’s used a total of 5 times, each time referring to some kind of evil doer. Calling God’s love “reckless” has no basis in Holy scripture.
Furthermore, describing God as “chasing” us has no basis in the Bible. Instead God is described as calling us… We, His sheep, know his voice and return. He waits patiently for us. Even the parable of the 99 and one lost sheep hardly illustrates a shepherd “chasing” fleeing livestock. The point of the parable is to reveal how important every individual is as the good shepherd gives his full attention to looking for and calling for an individual that is lost… one out of a hundred that had gotten so far away that his masters voice could no longer even be heard.
There are hundreds of beautiful hymns, some new and some old, worthwhile for congregations to sing and share with everyone but this is unfortunately not one of them.
The song is great! Don’t be a tool.
Perfect love sounds great I use to pause when it got to that word. I always change words if it doesn’t sound right. Example in the Romanian church They often sing I lift up my hands and majority doesn’t so I changed to I lift up my voice. I’m also very careful with words when praising God. What about tearing lies, I question that too. Thank you.
Great post. My wife and I had this discussion when she was practicing choreography to this song at her dance studio. She said God stooped her and told her that his love is not reckless. My jaw dropped. I’ve even asked worship leaders about this, and they said that definitions can change and that might be how the person relates to God. However, as a teacher, I disagree because God should be defined by how he defines himself in scripture and not by our inaccurate punitive thoughts. We should be pursuing higher levels of thought toward God as we pursue him. So I even gone as far as to say that calling God’s love “reckless” a sign of immaturity and ignorance.
As i get older in my work with God i am now starting to understand that what i think about God effects the way i pray and the way i worship God and also that words are important as they were important to the man who wrote this song. We are in danger of bringing God down to our level where Cherubim & Seraphim cried continually Holy,Holy, Holy we in this modern day and age bring him down a buddy. There is no higher thinking in our worship no awe or majesty. When i did read the comments on YouTube it was all about how this song made me feel and how the Holy spirit moved. Nobody is interested in the fact that the word he keeps repeating in the chorus is wrong in its essence because they felt the Holy Spirit so i should just hold my peace. Feelings don’t trump right thinking of God or his word. I get the essence of what he was trying to say when he wrote this song but still from sound bible understanding it wrong. If God knows the start and the end what all are thinking at all times and is not surprised at all with what mankind has done and will do how is his love reckless it makes no sense. Words are important in all forms including in song.
Indeed, many (but not all) people do defend the song based on how the song makes them feel.
Greets All!
I’m a song composer. I’v been writing from my youth. As I grew up in the fear (reverence) of God, I chose to have accountability (strong teachers of the Word) for the words I would write so as not to cause any little one to stumble. I’m so glad I did because they held me in check. They knew my heart and what I intended but they gave me the truth about how my verbiage would be perceived. I was unwilling to suffer the consequences due to my youthful ignorance. I chose to go before the Father for words that would better convey His Will and not work against Him.
Though I was young in age and in the Lord, it would have hurt so much to later find out that I participated in any thing that would be the opposite of what God’s truth was.
I decided if that ever happen, I would repent immediately. That meant apologizing to my God and my Christian community and pulling that song or revising it, regardless of cost. To leave it as such would undermine my call, my representation of light, and my true motive. If I missed it, it would be my personal responsibility for the clean up.
I met Cory several years ago. He is a well-likable young man. I do not believe he intended to mislead our body. But I do believe he was left uncovered and not held accountable by seasoned, mature children of God who would have forewarned him of the consequences to come. Or perhaps there were those who did convey to him to tread cautiously and reword his phrases and Cory rejected it. There are other possibility.
However, we as the body now have a problem that we must diminish. What seemed at first to be innocent has now sparked ambers. Cory’s song is not only being sung in our fellowships but sermons are being written from it. This goes to show you that if it is sung into our spirit then it will proceed out of our mouth and our life.
Songwriters should be held to the same standards as those who public declare the Word! They have a responsibility to ensure that what they write to be sung in the heart of God’s dear one’s is untainted, uncompromised and the TRUTH!!! They must consider will this bring health or harm.
Here is my personal observation of the fruit of the song.
About 100% of the people who hears the song loves the music. It is catchy; it’s calm and soothing. I haven’t heard anyone dislike the musical portion at all. In fact that has been the real driver of its popularity.
The words, I can’t say the same about them.
Youth and youth pastors love it. New babies in Christ love it. Those that are young in learning love it. Those who love the artist loves it. Those who believe it’s not the words that count but Cory’s intentions regardless of right or wrong, they love the song and will sing it into their atmosphere and into others atmosphere as well. Those who hear the error but loves everything else reword the lyrics in their head.
However, there is community of those who know and have a godly fear of God, and know God is love and that true agape love is God, who dare not tread so familiar with God that they would insulted His holy character with human words that are untrue! They know that everything God does has a purpose, intentionally and is precalculated and is driven by His love and His righteous. They know concerning God there is no such a thing as God being in error or sin. They know that they cannot blame him even when they are tempted with poor judgement. They know if Jesus love is not reckless, neither is the Father’s love reckless. They know to associate such a word with God’s character is a false misrepresentation and a insult in the face of all those who deeply and sincerely revere Him. It is worser than talking about one’s mother. Vain words about God or His character, innocently or other, needs to be put to a stop and should never exist out of the mouth of His redeem children.
Words have consequences, whether they are sung or spoken. For the believer, we are entrusted to source all of our content from the Words of God and with prayer and godly meditation so we would avoid error and our own ideologies. Words are coming our artists mouths that are unchecking and not corrected. One simple untruth can grow into a multitude of untrues.
If babes they are, then what do we do when our little ones say things that their little minds can comprehend? We correct them, we explained the difference between right or wrong. We even chastise if it’s words of profanity. We do not applaud it! We do not condone it! We shouldn’t dance by it. Why? That manifested behavior grows and others will learn to do the same thing because their was no consequences or correction.
One example of the fruit from the untruth of God’s “reckless love” is, a young pastor stood up in front of the congregation to defend the song. The next time it was sung he did the same. On that same day he justified saying such things, he built his sermon upon the foundation of Cory’s verbiage and went further by saying, “God is a savage”. He repeated the same over and over. He continued to justify that it is okay to speak about God in such terminology. The only thing that kept me from disrupting the service is I denounced his words in my ears and said, “That’s who God is to you, That is not who He is to me.” I began praying that he would grow in a deeper love and understanding of God and that those who are his covering would correct him.
Lies and untrues unravel the truth; Truth and light unravels lies and untrues. Our young in heart needs the guidance and discipleship from those who stands firm on truth. It just sad when those who know better compromises for whatever their reasoning is. Let’s holdfast truth!
Here is my take, Cory and all other participating parties are responsible for the clean up at their cost!!! I personally would love to see the words change, the error acknowledged, and the song revised so we all may sing it together as one family of God.
I love Cory and all, even if we don’t see eye to eye about our Heavenly Father’s character. Yet, here is were we need to agree that we disagree.
My prayer is that we all grow deeper in understanding, wisdom and truth, that one day soon we find ourselves on the same page, having, upholding and protecting the message of God in unity and peace.
Blessings!
Totally agree. Nothing God does is reckless. Jonah getting swallowed by a big fish might seem reckless to us but not to God. We need to remember that we are striving to be more like Jesus, including in our thinking.
Thank you for addressing the verbiage in the song “Reckless Love”. From the first time I hear it sung in the church I then attended, the Holy Spirit in me was offended!. From then on when the church sang it, I change the word from reckless to precious, or another appropriate description of God’s love. When that song comes on the radio, I turn it off. No wonder so many people still love the hymns or chourses that were theologically correct and rich in encouragement. I refer to the contemporary music being written and sung today as “theologically lite”.
you thinh Helsong and Bethell are ok? you’re a dork!!!!
I have asked my self this question for a long time. I have always cringed at the idea that God “chases us down” or “tears down walls” ….. these lyrics have always made me uneasy. I know that God’s word says “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” and that he will come in if we allow him to. He never forces us or chases us down to love him. These are good conversations to have.
Anyone that says or sings The Reckless Love of God is Stupid, Foolish and Arrogant…..an that is especially true if claiming Christians do this!!! Ask Isaiah about this ….along the lines of Stupid Jews in his day and God Destroyed a lot them in that day. In comparison it is like saying one thing or doing another or other wise!
I have been surrounded by puffed up Christian Leaders, many of the PhD’s are simply ‘post hole diggers’….ask Harold Hill that wrote ‘How To Live Like a Kings Kid’!
When I sing it, I’m thinking “Unconditional Love” – as in 2 Cor 5:14-20. I’m thinking “the Love of Christ that passes knowledge” – beyond what we might consider ‘sensible’ or’ responsible’ from a purely human perspective.
I agree that Cory’s use of the word “reckless” is the incorrect word that gives a bad image of God and shows a misunderstanding of the actual text of the Bible (even though it does fit the beat of the song). I’d also like to say, briefly, that I do not like the usage of the parable of God leaving the 99 sheep to save the 1. The point of the parable is to say that you are just as important to God as the person next to you, but even by saying that the shepherd would leave the 99 with his other fellow shepherds implies that God would not be with the 99 while he is looking for the 1 person. I’d also like to add that the use of the word “overwhelming” is a bit of a misuse as well. I’m not sure where he could have found a verse or passage that talks about how God’s love overwhelms a person, however this line is not as inherently negative as God’s love being reckless. For instance, even though there is no passage about it, when Cory describes the overwhelming love of God, he is almost certainly saying that God’s love in inconceivable to us. However, this lyric, unfortunately, could also be viewed as smothering or even lustful in the sense that you are swamped by how much love he has. Overwhelmed by definition means that the situation is too much for you to the point that you want to get rid of whatever God’s love is overwhelming, which is not what he means, but does show deep misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
I disagree God is reckless
This is all too pedantic. Considering none of you DO Christ’s Commandments, you’re not really in any position to harp on somebody else’s use of the word “reckless” in a frickin song. Unless YOU are all PERFECT, just stop criticizing other people’s expression of faith. You “christians” are like vipers pouncing at any opportunity to strike somebody else’s faults, even in their sincere expressions of faith; you can’t even be happy for each other. ALL of you have faults in your own writing and interpretations of scripture, and it would be very easy to go through and criticize every one of you. So just stop. You are all just like the scribes Jesus called hypocrites.
I really hope all of you who are criticizing this song are perfect…you must be since you all have so much pride in your personal holiness and righteousness!
Andrew, you are full of yourself.
I wonder how easy it would be to criticize your books?