The "Reckless Love" Post

Alright—this is the post where I give my definitive take on “Reckless Love.”

I want to preface this entire post that I’m well aware of many dear brothers and sisters in Christ who wouldn’t hesitate to sing this song in worship, and I do not doubt the sincerity of their faith—especially as it is evidenced by the spiritual fruit displayed in their lives.

So I don’t share my view to invalidate their faith or experience, but instead, provide a sober call to equally apply discernment over the songs being used in worship, just as we would scrutinize preaching, praying, and exhortation.

In fact, this entire post was prompted by hearing a local pastor admonish opponents of songs like “Reckless Love”; his comments on a recent podcast gave me pause in my position and motivations, and pointed me to arriving at conclusions that, now, are more concretely grounded in Scripture than they have been before.

In the end, my takeaway was a stronger resolve for advising against the use of this lyric, but also, an even greater appreciation for poetic device when it mirrors Scriptural precedent.

Strap in.

The Common Argument: Ease Up!

Recently, I listened to a podcast where the guest being interviewed was asked about this particular worship song, and his reply was (I’m roughly paraphrasing):

“When it comes to the song… we are sometimes too ‘cute and judgy’ for our own good.”

He went on to caution listeners that when it came to a song like this, it might not be the best place to “pick a battle,” mostly because the use of “reckless” would likely reach someone who has viewed God as “distant and mean” and is now aware of the radical nature of God’s love, which the songwriter (Cory Asbury) attempts to encapsulate in the word “reckless.” He concluded that we might even refrain from “writing a theological stance” on a song like this; in effect, the arguments would be too exhaustive, in way of not seeing the forest for the trees in the grander scheme of appealing to human emotion in the lyrics as we experience the love of God.

To boil it down: Critics of the song need to ease up, lest they become too judgmental over an issue of semantics.

I’ll admit it: I was rubbed the wrong way when I heard this. What one person would call “cute and judgy” is what I call “discernment and due diligence.” However, it sparked a couple questions:

• “Have I really given this song a thorough look beyond what I see in front of me?”

• “Are my biases overreaching in my opinion of this song?”

At face value, I can mostly agree with what this local pastor was saying—I would absolutely advocate for lyrics that emotionally “jar” the listener into a new mindset or view of God’s nature, particularly in the use of hyperbole, or intentionally exaggerated statements meant to give greater emphasis to the sentence’s subject. After all, Scripture is chock-full of these devices. Here’s the thing, though…

…the hyperbole has to be true and acutely clear, at least in a semantic sense.

Let’s look at this particular literary device in Scripture from two approaches and compare it to the song in question.

First Approach: Face Value (Looking at Definitions and Translations)

It’s important to define the word “reckless,” which is described as “without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.”

Here, there’s a sort of mindlessness, or lack of intent and foresight, at least not beyond the scope of immediacy. We could also incorporate “impulsiveness” to further define “reckless.”

To give an example, we often use the term “reckless driving” to describe someone who is not in complete control of a vehicle, due to inebriation or lack of skill. Again, the decision to get behind the wheel when one lacks competence or control is impulsive, lacks discernment, and pays no heed to consequences for what might occur. In this scenario, there’s nothing redeeming in the “reckless” nature of driving without intent or control. In fact, we impose hefty punishments for this kind of behavior!

So when I hear the word “reckless” used to describe the love of God, it creates a sort of dissonance in my mind—why use it in a positive sense when the very essence of the word is negative?

This where we’re drawn back to the subject of hyperbole as a literary device used throughout Scripture—something that is intentionally used in opposition to its literal meaning to point to a greater emphasis on a specific subject. Here are some examples of where we see it used:

• He shattered nations before them” (Psalm 44:2)—an idiom for a final, decisive victory; there’s no literal “shattering.”

• “As high as the heavens are above the earth” (Psalm 103:11)—illustrates limitless magnitude, not a literal, spatial measurement.

• “Then Peter came up and said to him, ‘Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.’” (Matthew 18:21–22)—signifies perpetual forgiveness, not a literal measurement of 539 acts of forgiveness before “laying the hammer down.”

Now, I’ve wrestled with “Reckless Love” for quite some time, and I’m repeatedly drawn to Scripture as the first basis for evaluation. In other words:

Does the word “reckless” appear anywhere in Scripture as a hyperbolic description of God’s nature, or as an exaggerated adjective that helps clarify/qualify His love?

The short answer is: No.

BUT—there are some exceptions.

If you look at historic and contemporary, formal translations of Scripture (i.e., NIV, KJV, ESV, etc.), there is no occurrence of the word “reckless” to describe the character or love of God; it’s only used to describe human behavior.

However, if you look at dynamic paraphrases like the Message, or the devotional material for the Passion Translation, the word “reckless” is used as a provocative idiom that, again, appeals to intense emotional imagery to convey God’s love as boundless and (positively) without care to any other circumstance apart from God’s sovereign plan.

Therein lies a big red flag: The only occurrences of “reckless” appear in documents that favor paraphrase over precision—the latter of which MUST be prioritized when rightly dividing the Word of God.

You might raise this question, though: “But aren’t there inherent biases in formal translations? After all, aren’t new translations produced to keep up with changes in contemporary languages?”

This is a valid objection; this is a common sticking point when trying to understand Scripture when we don’t speak the original language and aren’t the original audience. The accusation is that when translated, we view Scripture through a biased lens, rendering certain phrases askew from their original meaning, either due to poor translation or lacking a precise equivalent to the original literary device/phrase being used.

So, let’s take a look at the original language, shall we?

The Second Approach: The Deeper Dive (Original Language)

When examining the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), the same is true for the English translations:

There is no occurring term that meets the equivalent of the English term “reckless” in any of these languages when it is applied to the character of God.

The only occurrences of anything positively that resembles “reckless” can be found in Proverbs 11, where a wise man “scatters his wealth generously,” using what would normally understood as “foolish” to actually be “wise”—and this is because it explicitly says so.

Another case of “foolishness” used to positively illustrate a theological point comes in 1 Corinthians 1, where Paul describes the will and wisdom of God to appear as “foolishness” to men, and goes on to use hyperbole to enhance this distinction:

Here, the readers know that God has no foolishness or weakness, and they understand through the context of Paul’s argument that even if God were to have foolishness, it would be wiser than the wisest of men; likewise, His weakness would be stronger than the strongest of men.

Aside from these examples, nearly every occurrence of what we would translate as “reckless” directly pertains to the weakness, folly, insufficiency, and stubbornness of man.

It’s hard to argue with that, but yet, there’s still another objection, which leads to a third approach of evaluating the song.

The Third Way: What About the Writer’s Intent?

In all of human dialogue, it’s important to keep context and intent in mind when evaluating what one party is saying, especially when it creates controversy.

So what does Cory Asbury have to say?

OK—so it’s good to hear that he doesn’t view God Himself as inherently reckless. But the sticking point is that Asbury characterizes God’s love as reckless, “unconcerned about His actions.”

Therein lies the problem: Asbury is committing a number of logical and argumentative fallacies:

1. Categorical error: In this statement, Asbury divides an attribute of God (how He loves) from an essence of God (how God is love). Looking to 1 John, we know that God is love; therefore, His act of love stems from His “being” love. You cannot divide the two and ascribe different meanings to them.

2. Equivocation: This is part of the categorical error, akin to “moving the goalpost,” where Asbury redefines “reckless” differently for the attributes and essence of God. Changing the meaning of terms from literal “recklessness” to figurative mid-argument creates misleading conclusions, along with incoherency.

3. False dichotomy: Again, part of the categorical error, where Asbury creates two distinct parts out of one whole, except that this cannot be done. Essence overarches the attribute; the attribute cannot exist apart from the essence.

4. Self-contradiction: In affirming and then denying the meaning of “reckless” in two different ways, Asbury violates the law of non-contradiction, which is the logical premise that a “proposition and negation cannot exist at the same time, in the same way.”

Then, there’s a theological incoherency:

• Ephesians 1 mentions God’s people as “His beloved,” going on to say that we have been “predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…”

• Psalm 104 highlights the wisdom and intent of God as sovereign creator and ruler of the earth.

• Lamentations 3 declares: “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.”

These are but a few of the many verses that repeatedly point to a love that is sure, steady, faithful, and eternal, from a God who is completely in control, wise, strong, kind, and has planned to carry out this kind of love.

There’s nothing reckless about that, literal or figurative.

What We Can Gain from “Reckless Love”

I mentioned at the beginning that while this deep search strengthened my position on avoiding the use of “Reckless Love” in worship services, it brought my attention to the lack of poetic hyperbole in much of the music I write and listen to. In fact, I believe this song issues a kind of “call” to artists within the church:

We need to write more songs that connect more viscerally, but not at the expense of intellectuality or rationality.

That’s the one thing that, I believe, has made “Reckless Love” so popular with churches around the world, especially those who focus on intense evangelism and conversion. The song tugs at the “gut” of the listener, through its intense lyrics and well-crafted melodies. The problem is that it overemphasizes the visceral and creates confusion for the already-established intellectual and rational aspects of our faith and understanding of who God is and how He loves.

So in your planning, writing, and praying, I would encourage you to lean into ways that you can express the raw while remaining coherent and clear with what we all know to be true:

God loves you. His love seems radical, yet is original and unchanging. His wisdom and power are displayed through His love, which is an extension of His being—His very essence. What a wonderful reason to worship—what fuel to fan the flames of our passion!

Be blessed 👊✌️