Why Piper is Wrong about "What A Beautiful Name"

Photo: Micah Chiang

I love John Piper. He is, without a doubt, one of my living heroes, and someone who is widely considered to be a living legend. His ministry has influenced countless people for the glory of God and has been a decisive factor in thousands of believers going into full-time ministry. Even before his famous "sea shells" sermon at the first Passion Conference in 2000, Piper has been rocking the world with a bold call to glorify God by desiring Him above all else, showing God to be the supreme good.

As much as I love John Piper, I do not always agree with him. He is more Calvinist than I am (if I had to pin myself to the theological spectrum, I would fit somewhere between "Four-point Calvinist" and "Molinist"). He is more complementarian than I am (although I am comfortable enough with that label to embrace it). And, when it comes to cultural analysis, I find myself more often at odds with Dr. Piper than in agreement with him.

One case that stood out for me was the position he took about the popular Hillsong tune "What A Beautiful Name", written by Brooke Ligertwood and Ben Fielding. On Episode 1077 of Piper's popular podcast "Ask Pastor John", he said he was troubled by the second verse of the song because of the following lyrics:

You didn't want heaven without us,

So Jesus You brought heaven down.

From "What A Beautiful Name", copyright 2016 Hillsong Music Publishing Australia

The fairest summary I can provide of why Piper disapproves of the lyric is that he feels it smacks of man-centered theology rather than proper God-centered theology, and that it can lead people astray from the truth that God seeks His own glory above all things. Piper admitted that the words were not technically untrue, only that they lean toward an unhealthy theological perspective. He added that there are so many theologically rich and accurate songs available to the church that there is no reason for churches to sing theologically inferior or unclear songs.

A Double Standard

I disagree with Piper's assessment of this song. He claims that the lyrics lack theological precision and so carry the potential to lead people astray. But the same could be said for certain verses in Scripture, when taken out of context and without regard for genre or the rules of interpretation.

Take, for example, a few of David's more visceral remarks:

Happy is the one who takes your babies

    and smashes them against the rocks!

Psalm 137:9, New Living Translation

Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord?

    And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?

I hate them with complete hatred;

    I count them my enemies.

Psalm 139:21-22, English Standard Version

Or even some of Jesus's more memorable hyperboles:

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Matthew 5:29, English Standard Version

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26, English Standard Version

Are these statements, taken literally, theologically precise? Do they have potential to confuse or mislead people? To be sure, many a Christian cult has been established due to misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture. More than a few individuals have read the verses above and have come to tragically wrong conclusions because of them.

“It seems to me that Piper, and those who share his perspective, hold modern-day songwriters to a higher standard than Scripture itself.”

It seems to me that Piper, and those who share his perspective, hold modern-day songwriters to a higher standard than Scripture itself. We allow for certain passages in Scripture to have genre-specific exceptions to the rule of theological precision in the name of sound hermeneutics. As long as they are filed under the categories of "poetry," "prophecy," "allegory," "parable," or "hyperbole," we are fine with a little imprecision.

But when a song takes a little "artistic license"—a category not recognized by most theologians—we condemn the song as unworthy of congregational worship and raise the red card of heresy over it (or the yellow card of heterodoxy).

Is There A Line?

I believe that song writers should be afforded a certain degree of artistic license and freedom of expression within acceptable theological boundaries. But where those boundaries lie is not as easy to determine. For me, they lie somewhere between "Reckless Love" and "Above All". The latter song is one of the only popular worship songs I am aware of that contain lyrics that clearly go over the line of theological acceptability. The final words of the chorus, "You took the fall and thought of me above all," stretch orthodoxy beyond credibility. It is the atomic wedgie of worship songs.

I agree with Piper that worship leaders and teams should be vigilant in safeguarding truth and should take their role as visible leaders and teachers in the church seriously. Songs should absolutely be vetted for Scriptural faithfulness and doctrinal richness. But there also ought to be a category for songs that speak more from the heart than from the mind. The Christian faith is a faith of reason (cf. Romans 12:2), but it is also a faith of groans and utterances that words cannot express (Romans 8:26), as the Psalms so amply demonstrate.

A healthy worship culture that reflects the richness and variety of Scripture is one that balances old songs with new songs, celebration songs with songs of lament, as well as "mind" songs with "heart" songs. If anything, we need more songs crafted with both musical mastery and artistic expression that convey biblical truth faithfully. "What A Beautiful Name" is an excellent example of such a song.