Worship-Review.com
Trading My Sorrows by Darrell Evans
Trading My Sorrows
By Darrell Evants
CCLI# 2574653
Reviewed by Tom Arthur
(tom[at]saraharthur[dot]com)
Lyrics
Darrell Evans
Sample Music
Darrell Evans has written a song that is a perplexing mixture of wonderful biblical allusions and inadequate lyrics. The primary message of this song is that through the Lord sorrow, weeping, and pain or suffering may be turned into joy. To this the Christian must certainly say “yes.” But there are several problems which this song succumbs to along the way.
The primary message of this song is probably strongest in parts of the third verse and the bridge. These are almost straight quotes from scripture. The first half of the third verse comes from 2 Corinthians 4:8-9 where Paul exhorts the Corinthians saying, “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed” (all scripture quotations are from the NRSV). The last line of the third verse comes from Nehemiah 8:10 which says, “For the joy of the LORD is your strength.” The bridge comes from the second colon of Psalm 30:5 when the psalmist says, “Weeping may linger for the night, but joy comes with the morning.” These scriptures along with a host of other scriptures speak to the reality that in Christ one’s suffering is remade into something new.
Two of the most prominent scriptures in regard to redemptive suffering are Romans 5:3-5 where Paul says, “And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us,” and James 1:2-4 which says, “My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.” Of course there is the message of the cross which speaks to Jesus’ own redemptive suffering and how God raised him from the dead. As well, Martin Luther King Jr. picked up on this theme when he talked about unearned suffering being redemptive (Suffering and Faith), and his leadership of the civil rights movement showed how this can be true in society at large. Redemptive suffering is a theme and a message that the church would do well to explore more fully on a regular basis. While Trading My Sorrows does well to explore this theme, it succumbs to several problems along the way of this exploration.
The first problem is the persistent first person perspective which drives the song. One of the clearest places where this first person perspective comes to the surface is in the otherwise strong quote from 2 Corinthians. In it Evans has changed the pronoun. Paul’s pronoun is the first person plural “we.” Evans has substituted “I.”
This reminds me of the mistaken attempt to turn the Lord’s Prayer into a first person prayer substituting “I” and “me” for “our.” Something inherently important to the message and formative power of the Lord’s Prayer is cut out when this kind of substitution is made. The Lord’s Prayer is a communal prayer. It is a prayer for a community that seeks to ask for that which is needed for the community. Likewise, Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians is a communal exhortation. They are able to withstand the suffering precisely because they are doing so within a community of fellow brothers and sisters who together are seeking the power of God given in clay jars (2 Corinthians 4:7, the verse before the one quoted in the song). Being a part of a community helps emphasize the clayness of the jars. We can’t do it alone. We are dependent on others. We are together the body of Christ, needing every part of the body (1 Corinthians 12:27), and it is in that body of believers that we carry the death of Christ and the life of Christ is made visible in our bodies (2 Corinthians 4:10, the verse following the one quoted in the song).
The second problem is a question of agency. Who does what in this “trading”? The entire song puts the activity in the first person. Where is God in this transaction? Paul answers this question clearly in 2 Corinthians 4:10. It is a reciprocal relationship. We do the carrying (active tense) and God makes Christ’s life visible (passive tense) in the same way that Jesus is always said to have been raised by God (As in Acts 2:32: “This Jesus God raised up”). God works God’s grace first in our life and then we cooperate with it. But in Trading My Sorrows the tense is always active. “I trade.” “I lay.” What role does God play in trading and laying? Perhaps “my sorrows are being traded” or “the joy of the Lord is being laid down” just aren’t quite as catchy. But a better poet than I might be able to make the passive tense sing.
The third problem with Trading My Sorrows is the chorus. Why Evans succumbed to this repetitive minimalism in a potentially otherwise strong scriptural song is hard to imagine. The phrase, “Yes, Lord” shows up five times in all of scripture as in Martha’s response to Jesus: “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world” (John 11:27). The chorus has us singing it nine times. Surely a talented song writer like Evans could do more with the theme of redemptive suffering in the chorus.
Lastly, I am uncertain what to think of the phrase “blessed beyond the curse.” It is an interesting phrase, and I am unable to determine whether it is an allusion to a specific verse of scripture. It is potentially a theologically rich phrase. It suggests that the curse of the fall in the garden is not a standard that we live up to. In other words, some argue that women are “cursed” to be subservient to men because of the “curse” in Genesis 3:16. (Oddly enough, the same standard is not held up to men to live into their curse of toil in the earth [Genesis 3:17].) Thus, women, and men, are blessed in Christ to live beyond this curse.
Would I use this song in worship? Probably not. The theme is a strong theme. But the pitfalls of the song are too great. The overbearing first person perspective, the one sided agency, and the weak chorus are too much for the strong theme and the strong scriptural allusions to overcome. Perhaps some will be brave enough to rework some of the lyrics to fix these problems. But while I hope to say “yes” to God’s grace at work in me transforming my sorrow and pain into something new, I am going to have to say “no” to Trading My Sorrows.
2 people have left comments
RickW said:
Tom, I think some of your criticisms are at least partially valid, but others seem unfounded.
First, a knowledge of the song’s origins would be helpful in forming an opinion of the work, which was basically a spontaneous response to God’s working in a congregation, rather than an attempt to write the next “hit” worship song. It also addresses the bulk of your criticisms.
Second, you criticize the change from first-person plural to first-person singluar regarding the near-direct quote of 2 Cor 4:8-9, saying,
Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians is a communal exhortation. They are able to withstand the suffering precisely because they are doing so within a community of fellow brothers and sisters who together are seeking the power of God given in clay jars.
However, reading a broader selection of 2 Corinthians shows that Paul generally uses “we” to refer to his ministry team, and “you” to refer to the Corinthian believers (v 5, 12). Rather than a “communal exhortation” in those verses, there is a statement of his team’s trials in their work (”we”) for the sake of the (Corinthian) church (”you”). In fact, that could potentially be a stronger argument against the song than a plural-to-singular criticism.
Further, you could have used the same criticism of Paul himself, who in that same chapter (v13) changes a quote from Psalm 116:10 from a first-person singluar to a first-person plural. Regardless, personalizing a broadly-applied concept is hardly a theological kiss of death. Otherwise, one might as well be criticized for exclaiming, “my sins are forgiven! I’ve been cleansed!” (a plural-to-singluar shift of 1 John 1:9). In fact, personalizing a broadly-applied precept can be helpful for some believers to claim promises that they might otherwise relegate to the category of “generally true for others but not for me”.
Third, your criticism of the lack of explicit acknowledgement of God’s part in the trading, while superficially valid, is partly negated by the history of the song. It was a response to God’s work that prompted the claim. While your criticism is partially justified in that the bulk of those singing the song likely don’t know that history, a brief preface by a competent worship leader would easily solve this problem, correctly portraying God as the agent who makes the trade possible. In addition, though there are numerous blessings available to believers, we are often hampered by our own reluctance to receive what God desires to provide. For example, forgiveness is awaiting all who accept it, but each person must accept it personally.
Finally, you critique the repetitious chorus. I, too, am no fan of excessive repetition (”Celebrate Jesus Celebrate” comes to mind), and I agree with you that that is the weakest part of the song for general use. However, I was compelled by the description of the origin of that “repetitious” chorus:
Raising their hands to the Lord, Darrell and the congregation began to sing, ‘Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord, Yes, Yes, Lord,’ as an agreement with what God was doing in their lives at that moment at the altar” (italics added).
It doesn’t fix the issue of repetition (truly a potential problem in circumstances that are different from those of the song’s origins), but it does help explain it. It also shows that the repetition (in that situation) was far from vain, and was a heartfelt response to God’s working.
I wholeheartedly agree with your underlying motivation, that we need to be very careful what we sing (corporately as well as individually), and should investigate potential songs for theological soundness. We should also be careful when using songs created spontaneously as a response to a specific circumstance, that we know the circumstance and can find relevance to our (congregation’s) circumstances (it’s for that reason that our congregation won’t likely be singing Matt Redman’s “Heart of Worship” anytime soon - the song’s origins do not fit our circumstances). Lacking that congruence, special steps should be taken to convey the origins, circumstances, or unstated theology if the song is used corporately.
In summary, while I partly share your concern about the repetitious chorus, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the song can’t be worthwhile, or that its perceived weaknesses outweigh its strengths. The first person perspective is far from overbearing (unless one is predisposed for it to be so), and the “one sided agency” and “weak chorus” are both belied by the song’s history and can be compensated for with a bit of planning.
That said, I completely respect your decision not to use it with your congregation, and in no way fault your decision as to what is best for your congregation. We each must answer to God for what we do, and must act in good conscience with that in view. Far from trying to persuade you that this song would be good for your congregation, I simply wanted to share some context about the song and a concern about your reading of 2 Cor 4 and who Paul referenced by his use of “we”. In fact, I suspect that we would probably be in agreement more often than not on the suitability of songs for corporate worship, but happen to disagree in this instance - and that’s okay.
Tom Arthur said:
Rick,
Thank you for your insightful comment and the spirit with which it is written.
I believe you have some good correctives to offer my review. Although in the end, I still believe the song carries more problems than strengths.
First, your point about the original context is a good one. It is not one I have thought through much at all. I will spend some time contemplating this suggestion.
Second, nice work on the exegesis of “we” and “you” in Corinthians. It is a point I concede in part. Is Paul’s “ministry team” not also the church? Is it not suggestive that Paul has a team rather than just himself? And the “you” that you refer to in verse 5 & 12 is also a plural in both places. Paul clearly is talking about groups of people here, not individuals.
My point in bringing up the singular vs. the plural is not to put a straight jacket on the use of singulars nor even to suggest that we can never appropriate a plural statement for the singular (as you have so well pointed out that Paul does himself!). Rather, I am concerned by a general tendency I see in American Christianity to make faith overly individualistic to the neglect of the community of the church. Rarely in the Bible does God deal only with individuals. God is almost always working with individuals in the context of a people or community.
Third, I’m not convinced that the original context is enough to work out the agency. If the song came as a work of the Spirit, then why don’t the lyrics reflect that work? If they don’t, then aren’t the lyrics missing a significant part of the original context?
Lastly, I can see some validity in your hearkening back to the original context as a defense of the repetition in this song. I am not always opposed to repetition (nor should those of a more classical bent who enjoy listening to works such as Handel’s Messiah). The repetition of “Yes Lord” seems to be somewhat simplistic amidst a rather theologically rich song. I did hear a worship leader introduce this chorus saying, “Now for all the times you said ‘No’ to the Lord.” Certainly the comments of a worship leader help attenuate weakness in bringing a song written for one context into a different context.
Rick, thanks again for your thoughtful engagement.
Commentors on this Post-
- Copyright 2010 worship-review.com. All Rights Reserved.
- Back To Top
- Home
Leave a Comment-