Michael W. Smith has a new hit song called "A New Hallelujah." I'm trying not to be too analytical about this, but if you're a musician/songwriter I'm sure you can relate to my natural bent toward critiquing new popular music. I really do give Smitty the benefit of the doubt, because his songs have greatly ministered to me and the church for years. Not to mention, respected songwriter Paul Baloche co-wrote the song with "W" and his wife. This song will most assuredly be a huge hit (the melody and music are excellent). I just have a few observations/questions about it. Maybe you can help me. Here is the video of "Mr. CCM" performing the song in Houston (lyrics below):
(verse 1)
Can you hear there's a new song
Breaking out from the children of freedom
Every race and every nation
Sing it out sing a new hallelujah
(verse 2)
Let us sing love to the nations
Bringing hope of the grace that has freed us
Make it known and make Him famous
Sing it out sing a new hallelujah
(chorus)
Arise let the church arise
Let love reach to the other side
Alive come alive
Let the song arise
(verse 3)
Africa sings a new song
Reaching out with a new hallelujah
Every son and every daughter
Everyone sing a new hallelujah
1. Notice there is no mention of God by name (other than the "-jah" part of "hallelujah" which means "God"). There is a pronoun "Him" in the second verse that refers to God, which follows the line about His "grace that has freed us." Really, the only problem I see in this is that it makes the song potentially religion-interchangeable. It worries me to see a "worship" song that people will certainly sing in Christian "worship" services all over the world, but which doesn't assertively and exclusively identify Jesus Christ, the true and living God, as the One to Whom we are raising a new song. I could definitely see Oprah endorsing a song like this, and I tend to steer clear of praise and worship songs that Oprah wouldn't have a problem endorsing.
2. Question: What does the second line of the chorus mean: "Let love reach to the other side"? I asked my wife, and her immediate response was, "the other side of the world." I hadn't thought of that. My first thought was that "the other side" refers to the spiritual realm, or the non-physical. You know, like when you die you go to the "other side," or like where the angels and demons battle. My wife is probably right, but even if it does mean "reach to the other side" of the world, why is that a "new song"? Hasn't it always been the call of the church to love people both near and far? Which brings me to number three.
3. A "New" Hallelujah? New? I'm fine with this if by "new hallelujah" the songwriters mean "new song." I'm a bit leery, however, with the modern church's fascination and need for the "new" and "fresh" and "cutting edge" material, etc. Why is it a "new" hallelujah? Isn't "hallelujah" the same as it has always been. Indeed the Persons of the Godhead have been hallelujah-ing each other from before the foundations of the world. "Hallelujah" is like "holy, holy, holy." Surely we write all kinds of new holy, holy, holy songs, as well as hallelujah songs, but the meanings of "holy" and "hallelujah" never change. I am convinced that it would serve the church even greater to get in touch with the ancient ways, get back on the ancient paths, "where the good way is" (Jer. 6:16), to join the world-wide Church in an ancient hallelujah.
4. Final observation: Man, he is one good looking dude.
That's all. Again, I mean no disrespect to the songwriters. I'm just being my usual self for better or worse. Thoughts? Peace and love.
10 comments
Comment by Kyle Fox on November 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I definitely agree with what you are saying. People might like this because we are interested in all things "new." By saying "new" the song seems to be implying that the church and the people of God have not being giving God praise with "excited boasting" as the term Hallelujah calls for. And this simply is not true, and the irony is that this video shows it. God is working, and has been working all over the world. This song calls for us to reach "the other side" (which, lets just say that means what your wife said) and there are already children from Africa right there. What a beautiful, incredible picture of the kingdom of God. And so, the song, while declaring something new, seems to be performed with the idea that there is nothing really new about any of this. Its the same hallelujah that has been shouted for eternity. I found that interesting.
Comment by B-U-R-L-Y on November 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I think as your wife, namely Melissa said "the other side" is the other side of the world ... and I like you thought "the spiritual realm" ... so at least we know that without "other side being defined" there will be confusion.
Also, he is good looking, and there's nothing we can do about that.
Every hallelujah you sing is a new hallelujah. The strange thing is, why would you announce it as such. Like me saying "A new hi to Ryan" because I said "hi" to you in the past and I wouldn't want you to be confused by the fact that I'm saying "hi" to you again.
Comment by Paul Baldwin on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Dude, when I'm 50 something..If I look half as good, I'll be stoked!
Smitty has always done a great job of not compromising his centered position on Christ while reaching into the mainstream from time to time. I've got to believe that his intent is in alignment with God's heart for us in the very definition of the word, "Hallelujah".
Comment by Dixie Redmond on November 14, 2008 at 3:18 PM
What a fun song to sing. I feel torn, for the reasons that you wrote. My worship leader's heart (it's still there even though I'm on break) was immediately thinking about what theologically rich song I would pair this song with.
Comment by Dixie Redmond on November 14, 2008 at 3:21 PM
And one more thought - when we really know God and see Him aren't we inspired to sing a new hallelujah? Because the last one wasn't enough, was it?
Comment by Carl Franzon on November 15, 2008 at 3:18 PM
QUOTE: It worries me to see a "worship" song that people will certainly sing in Christian "worship" services all over the world, but which doesn't assertively and exclusively identify Jesus Christ, the true and living God, as the One to Whom we are raising a new song.
I read somewhere once a similar comment about "Amazing Grace", how its popularity is in part due to the fact that it can be sung in many different settings without offending. To be fair, if it's sung in the context of a worship service, then it ought to be clear about whom we are singing. Always important to be thinking about what we sing. As for the new hallelujah, perhaps it is like the new song of Psalm 96 or Revelation 5.
Comment by Ryan on November 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
You guys make excellent points.
Dixie, I should have thought of the fact that we could always pair this song up with another song that might more overtly identify the true God as the one we are worshiping.
Carl, I didn't even think about other songs like this, such as "Amazing Grace," which is a beloved and acceptable song in both Christian and non-Christian contexts.
I went through the hymn in my head, and when I got to the last verse, I chuckled.
"When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we've first begun."
Isaac Newton seems to imply that the eternal song will never change. It is neither new nor old. To be fair, "God's praise" will eternally be new, but not new in the sense that it has never been sung before. More like new in the sense that the joy we experience when we sing and the fervency with which we sing the everlasting song will always seem new to us. It will never grow old.
Maybe that's what Smitty is trying to say. I'm just thrown off a little by the implication that it is something new to be reaching out to the other side. It may be that Mike is trying to reinvigorate a culture that has lost sight of loving others near and far. But that has always been the song of the true Church.
Comment by Matt on November 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
ryan -
He is good looking. but not as good looking as you.
Comment by Eddie and Laura on November 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM
On a completely unrelated note, Smitty's canceled two concerts in my part of Kentucky in the last six months. I'm not too high on him right now.
Comment by Alan on January 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Ryan,
I think you put your finger on why I have trouble connecting with this song. As a worship leader, I'm in a place where I'm looking for music that clearly communicates theological truth (not necessarily complex, but clear). There's just too much that can be left to interpretation here. I did a quick search to find the story behind the song, and was left to still wonder. Perhaps at some point, the writers will let us know what they were thinking. I do like the sound of the chorus, but I agree with your "on the other side" comment. I thought it meant like class distinctions (maybe it's because I watched Second Chance with my wife one too many times).
On point 4, I think Smitty should bring back his mullet! :-D
Thanks for joining us and sharing your thoughts.