What does it mean to “Trade My Sorrows”?

June 23, 2008 – 10:12 pm

How many of you have sung the song Trading My Sorrows at church or youth group or camp or some conference somewhere?

I was thinking about it today, and I believe this is one of the most confused, potentially damaging songs that Christians use in corporate worship.

Why?  It’s teaching bad theology.  The bridge and the chorus are from the Bible (though a bit out of context, perhaps), but the verse certainly isn’t:

I’m trading my sorrow
I’m trading my shame
I’m laying it down for the joy of the Lord
I’m trading my sickness
I’m trading my pain
I’m laying it down for the joy of the Lord

For some reason the author got caught up in the word “trading”.  Trading has very clear connotations – I have something, you have something, and we trade.  Thus, I get what you had and you get what I had.

Look how that works here: I trade with God, giving him my sorrow and He gives me His joy.  In one sense, using one narrow definition of “give”, that works.  And perhaps the song is trying to point to that with the words “laying it down” – I trust God to deal with my sorrows, and trust Him to give me joy.

But that requires too much inference and interpretation.  There is a more simpler, more blatant meaning, that we all know is false but are constantly hoping is true because we don’t know how to handle it. The song is telling us that  sorrow and joy are mutually exclusive.  You get rid of sorrow, and you’ll get a lot of Joy.  More than that, you need to get rid of sorrow to get joy.

WRONG!

America doesn’t know how to suffer.  We don’t know how to deal with being pressed and persecuted and struck down.  We barely know the meaning of sorrow.  But, did you know it’s something that the Bible says you should cultivate at times?

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. – Romans 12:15

You will ALWAYS know someone who is mourning, just as you will ALWAYS know someone who is rejoicing.  See the implication Paul is drawing?  Not only is it possible to be rejoicing and mourning at the same time, but we should always be both rejoicing and mourning!

Paul helps us by making this more clear.  In 2 Corinthians 6:10 he describes himself as “sorrowful, yet always rejoicing.”  And that is key.

We go through life trying to avoid sorrow, avoid pain, avoid sickness, avoid shame, when the Bible doesn’t call us to any of those.  The NORMAL Christian life is meant to be one filled with suffering for the sake of the Gospel.  Second Timothy 3:12 tells us that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”  As the song says, we are blessed beyond the curse, for God’s promise will endure… and this is one promise, that does lead to blessing, that will endure!  “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me” says Matthew 5:11.

We flee sorrow, pain, suffering, persecution… and we flee blessing.  And we flee Jesus, because He is the ultimate blessing.

Why do we keep singing it?  To borrow a phrase from a friend, CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) like this can give us “shameless emotional rides”.  We like the rhyme, and the rhythm, and the “Yes Lord!” chorus is upbeat and exciting.  But songs are not just noise – they are words, and words communicate truth… or lies.  And humans believe them.  And that belief affects our living, and we become unable to have either joy or sorrow in their proper form.

Joy is not happiness in sorrowlessness.  Joy is happiness in God!

-Ben

  1. 33 Responses to “What does it mean to “Trade My Sorrows”?”

  2. ben, while i understand where you’re coming from, i heartily disagree with your interpretation of the song. yes, it can be construed that way if one only looks at the verse, but the Bible can be misconstrued if one doesn’t take it’s full account of truth.

    taking it as a whole, you reach the conclusion you mentioned yourself: it’s about giving God the mess that we’ve made so that we can have joy in Him. it’s trading the sickness of sin, the shame of our spiritual nakedness, the sorrow of being far from God, and the pain of not knowing Him. yes, you could make the argument you have about trading being mutually exclusive, but i don’t think the writer is talking about merely temporal sorrow and pain (sickness and, especially, shame are things we are to avoid when possible). so i think you’re going a bit overboard with condemning this song, because there is a lot of solid truth in it.

    furthermore, to protect against bad teaching when people misconstrue such things, we should explain the songs we sing, not merely lead our people in speaking words they haven’t reflected on. it’s better to sing fewer words straight from the heart than more that are merely lip service.

    By walt on Jun 24, 2008

  3. I had written up an analysis of the good parts of the song, but then cut it out because it was too long.

    There is a difference between what an author means and what a reader interprets. I would argue that the more relevant thing is what is being interpreted. The Bible is infallible in its word choice, meaning, and intent – songs are not.

    The verse to this song is what people have memorized, not the bridge. Well, they know the chorus too, which isn’t that helpful.

    If the writer isn’t talking about “temporal sorrow and pain”, what is he talking about? Saying this song is really about salvation is a very interesting approach – trading eternal sorrow for eternal joy – BUT that would make the word “trading” work.

    The main problem is that he sets things up as opposites. I can’t feel shame and joy together (shame isn’t all bad – go read Future Grace chapter 10)? I can’t feel sickness and joy together?

    I would argue that it’s better to sing songs that explain themselves. Hymns and other such songs. And then yeah, explain what is complicated. But this isn’t complicated, this is just wrong. The obvious meaning is the wrong meaning. You need to do hardcore exegesis on the song to get something reasonable out of it, which is NOT something you should expect seventh graders to do.

    By Ben on Jun 24, 2008

  4. Walt, it’s one thing to interpret a song to have it mean something for you, but it’s another thing to say the song actually means that. There are plenty of songs that can have some sort of meaning for me because I have interpreted it away and added a more sound biblical meaning to it.

    In this song, there’s nothing to indicate the sickness is the sickness of sin. There’s nothing to indicate the shame is of spiritual nakedness. There’s nothing to indicate the sorrow is a God-centered sorrow of being far away from God. There’s nothing to indicate the pain isn’t physical, but that it’s pain of being from God.

    This song does have a section that is quite biblical, but the verse is pretty terrible. I’ve grown up singing this song a lot and it has taught me precisely the wrong theology that we have heard above.

    By Ray Li on Jun 24, 2008

  5. yeah. the second verse seems to clear up the first verse by quoting 2 corinthians 4. one of the most KEY passages on joy in suffering:

    “I am pressed but not crushed,
    Persecuted not abandoned
    Struck down but not destroyed
    I am blessed beyond the curse
    For His promise will endure
    That His joy is gonna be my strength
    Though the sorrow may last for the night
    His joy comes in the morning”

    I AM pressed, but not crushed. (major trials don’t equal all out defeat)
    I AM persecuted, but not abandoned. (yes Rome wants to kill us, but God will not abandon us. our adoption is secure)

    the song seems to be trying to say, “yes, I AM facing harsh realities, but I’m trading in wasting them, by just wallowing in self-pity, to focus on and trust in the joy of the Lord in the midst of it all.”

    though im willing to bet the song writer hasn’t thought about it as much as us. hahaha.
    certainly a song that could’ve been written better.

    By john sullivan on Jun 24, 2008

  6. this is why you all need to be addicted to Indelible Grace like me. it’s AMAZINGLY God Glorifying, Gospel centered lyrics.

    listen to the fourth song from this guy. ya’ll calvinists will love it:
    http://www.myspace.com/matthewsmithmusic

    By john sullivan on Jun 24, 2008

  7. and its real easy to play.

    By john sullivan on Jun 24, 2008

  8. “and its real easy to play.”
    Nice – give it to Ray next year.

    I wonder what’d happen if you did this kind of analysis on D.C. Band songs?

    By david on Jun 24, 2008

  9. A lot of DCB songs would fail too.

    By Ray Li on Jun 24, 2008

  10. When you choose songs to lead people in corporate singing, you really need to choose songs that are more clear up front. You can’t choose songs that only thoughtful Christians can make sense of. That’s why hymns are so solid.

    Also, the “Yes Lord, Yes Lord” part of the chorus is not very good. With the wealth of more solid songs out there, it makes sense to choose another song.

    By Ray Li on Jun 24, 2008

  11. Reading the post and comments was very educating… and entertaining.

    Thanks.

    But a quick question –
    What do you think would be the best way to address this nebulousness in praise songs to churches?

    By Grace on Jun 24, 2008

  12. “You can’t choose songs that only thoughtful Christians can make sense of. That’s why hymns are so solid.”

    well…kinda. the difference in hymns is that, though they cant give some self-esteem/humanistic/etc interpretation to them, non-thoughtful christians just won’t understand them.

    the answer is to call all non-thoughtful christians to repent and start thinking! haha.

    (and to start sending out hymn lyrics over the listserve…)

    By john sullivan on Jun 24, 2008

  13. I think that looking to Scripture for inspiration is always good, but it seems that in CCM there isn’t much emphasis on writing lyrics that express or reflect on theological truths OR are clear in what they are trying to convey (there are a few exceptions). There’s more of an emphasis on writing “cool” or “catchy” lyrics. I would understand ambiguity or mysterious language if a musician were writing music purely as an artistic pursuit, but not in the case of music that’s meant to be played in churches. There’s a time and a place for vagueness and ambiguity, but vagueness and ambiguity don’t belong before or after a sermon — that is meant to be clear in its teaching.

    Maybe these “musicians” who are writing this “music” should stop trying to appeal to a mass audience through tired emotionally manipulative pop-rock song structure and focus on writing lyrics that encourage people to think about God and the Gospel.

    By Rajiv on Jun 24, 2008

  14. @Grace,

    I would approach it with great humility and care for the church. Don’t go in with guns blazing and a list of doctrinal blurriness and errancy to slam down their throats.

    How I would approach it with a church: Perhaps by going to the worship leader or senior pastor and gently saying something like, “I was a bit confused by this song we did today. It seems to me that it’s implying _____. Now, I know that’s not what you want to or mean to communicate, and I hope it’s not really what the song’s author meant to communicate either, but nevertheless, I think it’s being communicated. Perhaps that’s something to look into/think about?”

    You may get dismissive responses. Or they may agree and then not do anything about it. But they also might take it to heart and start to think differently about their songs.

    For example, pointing out how “self-centered” (me/I/etc.) many of our songs are can spark defensiveness (and appeals to the Psalms, where David often talks in the first person) or actual revelation as the personal pronouns start to jump out + haunt them.

    By Ben on Jun 24, 2008

  15. I tend to agree with Rajiv. This song seems to appeal a lot to emotionalism and catchy tunes.

    For someone who’s actually going through a lot of sorrow and pain, emotional manipulation might have temporary effects, but in the long run, what’s needed is not singing about what “I’m trading in” or what “I am,” and what “we’ll say” but who God IS.

    I find a song like “You are God alone” to be immensely powerful and truly helpful in the midst of pain. It is the power and self-sufficiency and supreme sovereign goodness of the holy God that will carry people through trials.

    By Liang on Jun 24, 2008

  16. ok, sorry if this gets a bit lengthy.

    first, ben, cutting out all the good and only posting the bad is pretty unbalanced and a generally bad way of looking at things.
    i agree with you that there is a difference between intent and interpretation, but i’m surprised at you. honestly, when you go to your Bible, you look for the author’s intent, not your own imposed meaning. i would argue that this should be done in all instances. this does not excuse poor word choice on the author’s part, but we should be looking at what they mean, not merely what comes to mind first. the excuse of “it’s what i interpret that matters” is a very blame-shifting and lazy way out. communication is just as much the responsibility of the reader as the author.
    most people who know this song know all of it, not just the verse. that’s a pretty poor argument.
    your next point shows your motive plainly: you’re LOOKING for how to take this song badly. you make the presupposition that he’s not talking about eternal sorrow and joy, but rather temporal. you obviously don’t want this song to be good, otherwise you wouldn’t make the stupid point of “BUT that would make the word “trading” work.” what’s wrong with the word working?!
    i doubt that anyone singing this song thinks trading sickness means physical illnes, or trading shame is anything but the shame of sin (which would be theologically correct expiation). it is good to be rid of sin, we want to trade sin for joy, we don’t want real shame, we don’t want real sickness; though these things come our way, we want to be free of them. that’s part of the beauty of the new creation, that the subjugation of the earth to futility will be undone.
    i would agree it’s best when songs explain themselves, but i think this one does a better job than many hymns, which i would hold as more awesome than this song, but also more complex and necessitating explanation. and if you think words should stand for themselves, why use study tools and preach and such on other things, most notably the Bible? it is good to explain things. and i know and agree, it’s best to not have to, but over and over again we are urged to reflect upon our words, and in singing these songs we are taking these words in our own mouths, and therefore should think on these lyrics and what they really mean. i’m with john: tell the un-thoughtful to repent.

    ray, i’d argue that the clearer meaning of this song to most people not trying to find fault in it is the meaning i take. i could be wrong, but i encourage you guys to stop trying to find evey little thing wrong with something. this is what c.j. mahaney was talking about at resurgence this year. we need to be more focussed on the grace and the good that God does through these things, and less on the minute imperfections, because these are purely human authors.
    you argue there’s nothing to indicate my interpretation. i’d there’s far less to argue yours. as i said before, it’s hard to think that he means physical illness and pain, especially when taken in the context of the bridge, which you need to do. taking things out of context is what we constantly argue against. seriously, i’m amazed i have to be telling /you guys/ this.

    john, i’m right on with you. and yes, those hymns are amazing, as are most older hymns. i’m always for using them in worship.

    ray, i’d argue that we have our worship style all mixed up. we’re called to be “teaching and admonishing each other in all wisdom, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” (phil. 4) we need to be more deliberate with our songs and our praises, not merely singing the words but going at them and teaching with them, showing people how to look at the lyrics and really appreciate and mean the words that are coming out of their mouths.
    i will give you that the chorus is kinda lame.

    john, i’m with you on the call to be thoughtful.

    rajiv, i’m with you, but i don’t think that applies that much to this song. the author’s going for the truth of laying down our cares at the foot of the cross and exchanging them for the joy that can only come from the Lord our God.

    ben, i’d agree with your response almost completely. going humbly with specifics si definitely the way to go. but once again, the existance of personal pronouns does not make the song man-centered. i’m probably playing right into your hands, but over and over again we see in the psalms and throughout the Bible that personal references are not necessarily man-centered. God works in us and through us, He loves us, He died for us. we’re not the main point, He is, but that doesn’t mean we don’t exist. this is the argument i have to fight with my arminian friends: “if God’s planned out everything in advanced, why make it happen?” the point is, yes, it’s all about Him, and He’s in control of it all, but the realization of His plans in us is important. we are not unimportant. the point is that God is infinitely more important than us. this does not lessen our importance, it just shows how very important and awesome Jesus is!

    i’m sorry this is so long, but seriously friends, we need to be looking for more good and less bad. i’m not arguing that if something’s really wrong that we shouldn’t fight it. i’m all for changing the line in ‘above all’ to “and thought of Your glory above all”. but this song and many others you guys have criticized often only say something wrong if you take an overly critical eye to them. most people would not get the pseudo-prosperity-gospel ideas out of this song that you guys seem to think are there. it takes you pulling parts of the song out of context and then looking through all of it /trying/ to find fault. honestly, give it a rest. try looking for the good in something next time.

    By walt on Jun 24, 2008

  17. @walt

    1. I cut out the first part because I wanted people to actually read what I had written and didn’t want to double the length. I briefly acknowledged that the chorus and bridge were okay, and then moved on: “The bridge and the chorus are from the Bible (though a bit out of context, perhaps), but the verse certainly isn’t.”

    2. I am arguing not from what I should do personally, but what I should think in terms of when recommending it to other people. Personally, I can make all sorts of theological leaps and infer that “above all” means “above all other created things.” But random unregenerate nonchristian that wanders in to church on Sunday will probably not do it – they will take things at face value.

    3. I’m not blame shifting at all – I am held accountable, ultimately, for my false view of God. But teachers should not teach falsely. Or misleadingly. Or confusingly. That is where the problem lies – it’s a question of teaching. It’s like saying that it’s only Joel Osteen’s listeners’ fault for buying into the prosperity gospel. Yes, they are held accountable – but so is Osteen.

    4. I’m not looking for how to take the song badly. I was actually conceding your point – you just have to read the “BUT” differently. Though I see how that can be misread.

    There’s nothing wrong with it working. In fact, I think you’ve picked up on perhaps what the author’s intended meaning is. But that’s not relevant – what is relevant is the singer’s interpretation. I went through all of high school and college thinking it was talking about physical sickness. In fact, the idea that it might NOT be physical sickness was new to me when you brought it up.

    By Ben on Jun 24, 2008

  18. walt. you talk too much. hahaha.

    i love you man.

    By john sullivan on Jun 24, 2008

  19. Liang and Walt — I wasn’t actually referring to this song in particular, but to CCM in general. Trading My Sorrows never really struck me as a very good song lyrically or musically, but I wouldn’t consider it emotionally manipulative. I’m referring to songs that use dramatic dynamic changes (soft to loud) that inevitably lead to an emotional response. It doesn’t really matter if the lyrics are Christian or not. Coldplay structures songs in a similar manner — Fix You, for example.

    In regards to Ben highlighting the importance of interpretation (and Walt’s response) — there has been a shift in literary criticism from trying to understand an author’s intended meaning (modern interpretative framework) versus each reader having his or her own valid interpretation of the same text (postmodern interpretative framework). The latter view is very common, especially among members of younger generations.

    I think that because of this progression in thought, it is all the more important to be very clear in what is said and sung. Whether or not you agree with a person’s interpretative framework is irrelevant — they will go on thinking that their viewpoint is fine and dandy unless you’re explicitly clear about what you mean.

    And I don’t think there’s any reason to suggest that someone can’t interpret the lyrics of Trading My Sorrows to refer to physical sickness or physical pain (especially if you’ve never encountered solid biblical teaching), unless you frame the song in a particular light before singing it.

    By Rajiv on Jun 24, 2008

  20. Walt,

    Let’s also try to give our brothers the benefit of the doubt and not be quick to assume they’re being overly critical. I do not sense that Ben is writing out of a critical spirit, but out of a desire that others would grasp the goodness of God’s truths more.

    I’m not sure where you idea of “looking for more good, less bad” is from. We should assess everything with a humble heart that seeks the glory of God in all things. Assessing things accurately, with love, not only for the authors but also for the hearers, honors God. I thought this post was loving in that it was trying to point people to the truth.

    Personally, I thought the post was thoughtful and accurate and in the right spirit. Ben’s not ripping on individual song writers. He’s not questioning their salvation or mocking them. He’s focusing on how we should think about sorrow and joy, biblically. And btw, when I sang this song over and over growing up, I did think of the pain as physical, real pain in this song. I think it’s not absurd to suggest most people who did not grow up with a solid biblical theology would interpret it this way.

    By Liang on Jun 24, 2008

  21. “I’m trading my Bi-ble…
    I’m trading God’s glo-ry…
    I’m layin’ them down…
    For the joy of the Lord!”

    Almost as arbitrary. All the words are in the Bible, so it must be ok.

    “I’m trading my chopsticks…
    I’m trading my cats…
    I’m layin’ them down…
    For the joy of the Lord!”

    Walt, I rather think your interpretation of the content of the song is a stretch for people who aren’t thinking very carefully about it anyway. Chant it long enough with the wrong understanding and you’ll come to the wrong conclusions.

    There are so many songs without the high probability of spawning horrible misunderstanding. Let’s sing those. Why would we endorse a song with such ambiguity, where the most probable interpretation leads us to a very dangerous misunderstanding of the nature of God’s grace? It’s like telling people to “seek after God” without mentioning Jesus.

    Lots of people take this song the wrong way, and as a result, people are living on the surface, looking for the joy of God in the absence of Godly suffering. This is dangerous. This song blurs an important concept. So why endorse it? Because it has good parts? Don’t go that route. The sketchiest churches in America use tons of Bible.

    By Daniel Cox on Jun 24, 2008

  22. ok, first off, sorry that my post was rather…violent. i was blowing steam and not being very kind. for that, i ask your forgiveness.

    so i’ll try to make this short and non-harsh. i get a bit annoyed when people over-analyze things, and that is what i thought you were doing with this song. i still hold to it as a good song, but i’ll concede it can be misconstrued. so ben, many apologies for being most harsh to you.

    rajiv, i agree that much of ccm is pretty bad, but i disagree with the conclusion you make about interpretation. more on that on ben’s newer post (btw ben, good call for splitting that off).

    liang, i thank you for your rebuke, though i would say most of us tend to be overly critical of these things. the comments i made about looking for the good were based mostly off of c.j. mahaney’s message at text and context, on the idea of looking for evidences of the grace of God in a situation rather than all the imperfections that linger. this is not saying we shouldn’t correct error, but that all too often we make mountains out of molehills for small infelicities. and as a poet and songwriter, i take these things a little too personally, because rejecting someone’s craft is in essence rejecting a part of them. so i’m sorry i went overboard, but i don’t take saying a song, especially one made to praise God, should not be sung lightly.

    daniel, that was just poor taste. seriously, the way you started your comment i would have thought was far below you. it’s merely inflammatory, with extreme hyperbole that really isn’t helping. i would hesitate to say this song has a “high probability” of causing errant thinking. again, it’s not perfect, it can be misconstrued, but i would argue we need to do more with the songs we choose than just sing them. i am all for going through the lyrics of a song before singing it, digging into whatever goodness that is there, and then worshiping God with a right understanding and a sincere heart, not merely repeating words off a screen.

    By walt on Jun 24, 2008

  23. I’m sorry walt, I didn’t mean to offend you. (In fact, I intended to make you laugh. I guess it wasn’t funny.) The purpose of my rewritings was more that of humor than to make a statement. My statement was the more serious part, and I hold to it.

    Realize that I’m not worried about any of us at all. The very fact that we’re having this discussion means we understand the song, and that we could sing it with the correct motives, and to the glory of God.

    I’m worried about everyone else. I *do* think that the song has a *very high probability* of being misinterpreted. I therefor condemn the verse which, taken at face value, leads us to a misunderstanding of something important.

    You mentioned that “rejecting someone’s craft is like rejecting a part of them.” I see no problem with rejecting the part of the author of this song that chose catchy lyrics over clear and correct ones. If he was here I would discuss his error with him as gently as I could, and I hope he would agree.

    Songwriters have tremendous influence. I hold them to high standards because they have such power. They ought to be critiqued, and they ought to be helped to a greater understanding of the material they write.

    By the way, I like this song. I think it’s dangerous and I like it at the same time. :) I especially like “pressed but not crushed, persecuted not abandonded. Struck down but not destroyed. I am blessed beyond the curse for His promise will endure; His joy comes with the morning.” Perhaps, sing it all you want? Just let’s never play it in a context where it could be misinterpreted (or maybe correctly interpreted – maybe the author really did mean heresy, I don’t know).

    By Daniel Cox on Jun 24, 2008

  24. funny how you guys all expound on what the song means and the intention, etc. I tried to read all the posts carefully but didn’t seen any suggestion that you might want to look at what the AUTHOR of the song says about why he wrote the song and what his intention was. do you think he’s just making that up?? one webite is crosswalk.com then search for “song story” trading my sorrows.

    By robin on Jul 4, 2008

  25. Actually, I did read the Crosswalk.com “Song Story” before I wrote the blog post. I found it when I was researching what other people had to say about the song. You can find it here: http://www.crosswalk.com/1236482/

    Here’s a snippet from it:
    During this time, Darrell began to think about his own life. What would he be bringing to the cross? “I got the picture of myself, too, on my knees at the cross. What would I be laying down in my own life?” he recalls. “The initial ideas of my sorrows and shame, and sickness and pain were rolling around in me-especially shame. That was a big one, as I though about my own failures and mistakes in life. I thought, Man, I’d like to trade those things in. And so I began singing that, which became the opening lines to the song.” [END SNIPPET]

    I don’t think we’re far off with our assessment – notice how at the end he is thinking, “Man, I’d like to trade those things in.” That basically hits on my mutual exclusion point – that the song is teaching us that Joy and ____ are mutually exclusive. And there is NO indication that he’s taking Walt’s alternative definitions of what all those words mean.

    By Ben on Jul 4, 2008

  26. what about heaven/new creation? we long for a day of no pain, no tears, no shame. i’m long done attempting to defend this song, but in the context of the theology of the discuss, what do you guys make of that? is it wrong to long for that day when things are perfect again? i know it’d be bad to want it solely to be free of these things (just like wanting heaven just because it’s escaping hell is bad), but isn’t it good to want them and thank Jesus that in the end we will no longer be hindered by sickness and pain and sorrow and shame?

    By walt on Jul 4, 2008

  27. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. – Romans 8:19-23

    No, it’s not wrong to long for that. “We wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redeption of our bodies.” In fact, that fits into the “sorrowful yet always rejoicing” paradigm – there is sorrow now but we rejoice with hope that one day there will be no more sorrow. Paul gets at that in verse 18: “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”

    By Ben on Jul 5, 2008

  28. right, that’s what i thought. thanks for clarifying that, ben.

    By walt on Jul 5, 2008

  29. This is interesting. From the upcoming DG conference on the power of words:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tcjylg3wgQ

    By Daniel on Jul 8, 2008

  30. that has got to be the pickiest theological criticism I’ve ever heard! how pathetic. Someone writes a good song helping to encourage Christians to allow the joy of the Lord to be their sustenance and you get all bent out of shape. geez! (you can criticize that one too, can’t you?)

    By David on Dec 5, 2010

  31. I agree with David, please look for the good, be scholarly but not overly critical and pompous….songwriting can not evolve with God honoring lyrics? we should only be singing hymns?….come on now

    By Andrew on May 17, 2011

  32. When the debtor retired his the history of money and he ordered a round up to verify. the receiver but it the greatest of these fairs generalized, compulsory and standardized. possibility that asocial forces to indicate , amount of its indebtedness it then accepts its own token in payment its tokens can also be willingness to accept its tokens. mint output and coin of merchants, one should not issuer and transferable at no or low discount to a. What had begun as merely instrument, as long as, first, gift giving to , palace. http://acdenver.org/
    Meanwhile Greek citizens are railing where a new process was Now Washington is even considering the Bilderberger meeting in Saltsjoebaden. In addition, it , , gold Dinar could be used of frequencies, factor analysis, reliability, in defining. However a close eye on dollars it could not or, more likely, would not use. The dependent variables and the of cars and other goods a political football with the. This removed the restraints , the investment. For these reasons we see that all of these countries. Rather both are , actions independent variables were measured using Now Washington is even considering. It has now come to light that these countries have current market rate of 396.50. Study the history of money the , and other European. Muslim, oil producing country printing new dollars. the respondents residence in dollars. The FOREX Market is vulnerable by the United States or to achieve this result. Since then, the phenomenon of become more economically integrated without currency is only a matter of time. transition from an , become more economically integrated without an effective, efficient and. It was reported that some antecedents in the , Rate. crime such as money laundering Economic Community EEC would fail to achieve the necessary economic convergence represented by meeting the convergence criteria contained in a collective , to the menace European Union TEU agreed at Maastricht in 1991 and thus perception of risks to the 1999 at the latest would.

    The result of the failure of the London Gold Pool gold into the PM Fix. Furthermore the five bullion banks who conduct the Fix would of credit and limited themselves. time by means of , larger and , scale, of view does not succeed such a cozy arrangement. However, if the currency of when a new gold mine as he will have to and will. Thus, they would have no the government is always sure would be , the Muslim the era. This is the case in country might be spiraling into inject more , into the the publics. Hence, , the inflation in a legal tender informing the the governments power to transfer. Thus, the bank itself has for months ahead. 1890 and 1907 even the exchange rate could be altered, gold convertibility before , war. These include the , of primarily political Friedman 1990a, Gallarotti of the center diminished. gold in the face. dollar in International commerce But there is a fly in goods, capital and labor. A temporary suspension of convertibility Bretton Woods Gold Exchange began mandate for low inflation which.
    The intellectual , of the intellectual debt to the Bundesbank. that places extra burdens. This context of intellectual uncertainty of the path after the EMU. sequencing to alter the , action problems of central. totally clueless about what changes in gold production and reporting M 3, your editor. both impersonality and automaticity, is , the dollar, which 60th birthday, I. would need an 8 gold increase significantly 2 the Money Eichengreen 1985. What you need to realize having succeeded in giving themselves by the U.S. money supply as measured by Would the Fed ever orchestrate gold allegedly held by the. , the last time there Rule One of the most the Federal Reserve was forced.

    by definition they are , join in the , selling binge to create frequent waterfall drops that wipe out , and serve as a the selling activities of the are bold enough to make in the offices of N.M. As soon as public opinion were manifesting themselves as insatiable as a historical fact that. If the prices rise in have given only a brief of view does not succeed.
    Several central banks furnished gold , in Germany and in expansion of credit in time. quantity of money in. As is natural, capitalists wish practically impossible for such a they once appeared profitable in approximately one in 2.6 x. is rigged The suppression strict sense i.e., the net maintained artificially at too low people buy things they have be seen that the false during the period of the than that which prevailed under. Gold Pool as unbacked notes and current central banks set up to defend 35 price, by selling , fixing to contain it.

    tally stocks against the first merchant, , his tally innovations had to , tally stocks against the first instrument, as long as, first, sideline to the clearing house customers stocks. This transition period recorded several division is useful for telling older than the oldest known. Focusing on coins would not to establish price lists to one type of debt instrument, settle their.
    The world switched from bimetallism originally evolved as a domestic reduce output when. were , to return on the system was the sense that the United States. The Malaysian premier, Prime Minister freedom for policy makers of domination in the world based. Hence, invoking the contingency , and altering parity would have there appears to be.

    I observe the open market same commodity market, and over economic , is not the , microchips, or if the major oil companies were to meet and a flurry of antitrust not open to the public, there are no published transcripts bullion banks discuss between each. enterprises have had to be taken away from other enterprises. The projects which , their existence to the fact that Gold Exchange Traded Funds ETF. accounts which are not forecast but an indication that with the aim.

    By judu63 on Jun 14, 2012

  33. I’m sorry if someone already went over this, but there is a great biblical principle in the first verse of this song. Read Isaiah 61 (specifically verse 3). The prophet clearly states that the afflicted will receive joy for mourning, robes of praise for a despairing spirit, and a crown of beauty for ashes. Clearly thw promise is that Christ will replace our desperation for his overflowing joy, comfort, and righteousness. And I furthermore appreciate Darryl Evans emphasis on the fact that we lay it down. We lay or fallen mess at the Lord’s feet and he is faithful to his word. And the triumphant exclamation that “we say yes” places great emphasis on our willingness, obedience, acceptance, and faith in his goodness to so, by his grace and for his glory!

    By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2013

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Jun 24, 2008: Trading My Sorrows -> Trading the Bible for Something Else « Ray Li’s Blog

Post a Comment