Doctrine Matters

In partnership with

I don’t often nix songs that are proposed by those who lead music on the worship team I direct.

But this past week, some red flags came up.

Here’s how we found a way forward.

Preparing for Easter Sunday

In the weeks leading up to Easter Sunday and celebrating the resurrection, the leadership of our church has been taking the congregation on a thematic journey of Christ’s approach to the cross.

Among these themes is highlighting the Son’s suffering; it’s a critical point of doctrine relating to fulfilling of prophecy, completing the atonement meant for our sins, and ultimately, qualifying justification on our behalf.

Enter: “Son Of Suffering” by Matt Redman.

It’s a song that came out in 2023, and it’s a song full of rich Christology—

Except for one line:

“There’s a God who weeps, a God who bleeds.”

On the surface, this doesn’t really seem like a problem. But it cued a red flag for me when a fellow worship leader suggested we use it for Palm Sunday.

The Impassibility of God

You see, earlier this week, I had been listening to Doctrine Matters, a podcast by Dr. Kevin DeYoung, a pastor and theologian from North Carolina. The day that I received the suggestion from my fellow worship leader, I had just listened to DeYoung’s episode about “The Doctrine of Impassibility.”

In a nutshell, the doctrine of impassibility states that God is unchanging in His nature, and therefore, He cannot be unduly affected through coercion, emotional state, or suffering.

The big debate around this doctrine is this: “Does God suffer?”

On one hand, God (in Father and Spirit), does not suffer bodily. But God the Son (in Jesus Christ) did suffer physically. The problem is the nature of Jesus, being fully God and fully man. Some would say that only His human nature suffered, but others caution against dividing the human nature from the divine, which strays dangerously close to heresies that separate the uniqueness of the hypostatic union (Jesus as the “God-Man”).

But one could say that even the statement from Redman’s song strays into heterodoxy, where there’s a blurring of the understanding of God’s nature that isn’t full-blown heresy, but it’s unhelpful when it’s viewed in and of itself.

Could we confess what this line conveys? Yes and no. We need to understand within the context of the song to get a broader picture of Whom we are singing.

The Broader Context

It’s crucial to evaluate a problematic lyric in light of its broader context, and it’s also really wise to discuss this with a group of wise peers and elders. (In fact, that’s what I did; I brought the song up to our lead pastor, who then brought it up for discussion in staff meeting to gauge everybody’s thoughts.)

Roughly, the framework that was employed was this:

• Are any of the words true or untrue? In other words, are we making huge semantic leaps for the sake of artistry, instead of clarity?

• How does the phrase fit the larger text?

• What is the musical timing of the phrase?

When holding these steps in mind, here’s where we arrived:

• No big semantic leaps. However, the nature of lyric (an expressly divine object exhibiting characteristics contrary to what is considered orthodox) gave immediate pause to some folks upon the first listen. (Requires special consideration in the next steps.)

• Within the larger text, the phrase “Son of Man” shows up, and there’s a clear picture of Jesus physically suffering, including that of His human nature.

• The musical timing of the phrase flows from one orthodox idea to the next; the problematic bit isn’t isolated.

Given this evaluation, we all felt comfortable giving this song the green light. However, it requires a brief exhortation where the worship leader needs to clearly and succinctly articulate the uniqueness of God the Son suffering for us, yet remaining unchanging in His nature and character. (Based on this mini-systematic theology we just went through, you might be saying, “Yeah… Good luck buddy!”)

Stay Diligent

Here’s the thing: It’s easy for us to ignore the deeper weeds of theology, especially on a systematic level. Typically, we don’t go that deep in the sermons we hear, and the commitment required to rightly learning and applying these truths is challenging.

Still—we’re called to broaden and deepen our understanding of God’s truth, not just for the sake of internal satisfaction, but to also build up the body of Christ, and sometimes, that means raising the question of caution when encountering songs that could pose a problem to the body.

Practically, I’ve found that remaining plugged into well-thought-and-taught podcasts, like DeYoung’s, are critical for helping me remain centered on how I understand the Word. Of course, it should go without saying: You need to be plugged into the Word as a first priority. But realize that there are learned brothers and sisters who have dealt with the hard questions and made it accessible for you to receive.

So, remain faithful: in study of the Word, receiving the wisdom of those near to you, and curious about what others are saying, all so you can steward well the times of fellowship in which your local church gathers to worship our Holy God.

Be blessed 👊✌️