Shout To The Lord On American Idol
Last night, the final 8 contestants on American Idol ended by singing one of the greatest worship songs of all time, Shout To The Lord. Click here to view the performance
My
JesusShepherd, My Savior
Lord there is none like You
All of my days
I want to praise
The wonders of Your mighty loveMy Comfort, My Shelter
Tower of refuge and strength
Let every breath
And all that I am
Never cease to worship You
…and so on. Bold, baby. Bold!
I got chills when I heard it. I get chills every time I watch this performance actually. I wonder why they picked this song, though? Singing a praise song (especially one as intense as this) is an extremely bold move, wouldn’t ya say? Rock on, AI.
Edit: The top 8 sang Shout To The Lord again tonight. This time they used the name Jesus. Interesting.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leavng a comment or subscribing to the feed to get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Loading ...
34 Responses for "Shout To The Lord On American Idol"
I wonder why they took Jesus out of the song? Maybe he wasn’t relevant enough?
They probably took it out just to avoid antagonizing the thin-skinned. When David Archuleta sang Imagine by John Lennon, he skipped this verse:
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/27/singing-imagine-without-the-best-part/
I see your point Ben, but there is a difference between the two situations.
The artist is solely responsible for the layout of the song when doing individual performances. I remember the performance you are referring to, and David was asked by Simon why he picked that verse out of all the verses in the song. Most of the time, the performers only have time to do 1 verse of a song, so he picked the verse that appealed to him the most.
He didn’t change the lyrics to avoid offending anyone. He simply didn’t choose to sing the verse you referred to.
This however, was a group performance and it isn’t like the group chose a different verse…They changed the lyrics and removed the exclusivity of the song to make it a ‘universal’ praise song for all religions to enjoy!!!
You take away Jesus, and you take away the significance of the song and the message it was originally intended to portray.
That my friend is truly a shame. And in the words of Simon, will make this in my opinion forgettable!
haha, well done. Too bad there isn’t a *British accent* emoticon! Hov or ash, can you help out here?? lol
Take out the word ‘Jesus.’ I still know who my ‘Shelter,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘Savior,’ and ‘Shepherd’ is.
Bill:
I am happy that you know who your Savior is…
I’m talking about the millions of people who watch American Idol who don’t, because His name was removed from the song.
What reaaly matters?
Close your eyes and listen. God’s Word says in
Psalm 46:10
“BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD”
God knows AI’s intentions, WHY? He created each and every soul. It’s not about a song. It’s not about what they did or didn’t do, it’s ALL about JESUS! Let it go and LET GOD! His Answer is the only one that matters.
Nice touch. I see nothing wrong with this. Why not have a song for all religions to enjoy? Since when was inclusiveness a bad thing?
You are correct - in only one case was the person who made the editorial change also the performer. Consider my post only about the person making the editorial change.
Sara:
Thanks for the compliment. It means a lot coming from you.
“>John 8:12
Jesus makes a very bold statement that answers your question quite directly.
The TRUTH always matters. Some might not like it, but that doesn’t mean we change it to make those who are wrong feel better about themselves.
Candy-coating poison doesn’t make it any less harmful for your body. The same holds true to religion. Believing in a ‘false’ god, or giving credit to a ‘false’ religion doesn’t make it any less harmful to your eternity.
The significance of the Gospel is JESUS CHRIST…Both who He is and what He did so that through Him [ALONE] we can be saved.
Yes, it was very nice to hear a ‘Christian’ song on TV without anyone mocking it, but it was a shame that JESUS CHRIST was removed from the message, when in all actuality, He is the message.
John 14:6 is another good “Jesus Quote” as well!
sure Bill, it’s the little face that looks like John Cleese. unfortuneatly you don’t seem to have that as an option here…
I’m actually not sure why they bothered removing the ‘Jesus’ at all tho; as Bill said, it remains a blatantly christian song using blatantly christian language. sounds more like a ploy to be able to respond to potential criticism with technical semantics than a genuine (badly done) attempt at inclusivity to me.
In my opinion, Truth speaks for itself regardless of the inclusion or the exclusion of words. The song is powerful in its message still. If what Ash said above is in fact true and it’s obvious to all who we’re praising with the song, does it really matter that they changed some words?
::blush:: I feel bad pointing it put now, but for the sake of clarity it’s best I should mention that I meant I though the attempt at inclusiveness was a nice touch, and I didn’t see anything wrong with it. Not that you don’t have nice touches…
You consider it truth. Your conviction is very clear. But there are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Baha’is, etc. with just as much conviction as you, and they all think you’re wrong just as much as you think they’re wrong. It’s the battle of holy texts, each pitted against the others, and as such each one’s convictions are equally valid, or at least no one’s is more valid than any other.
That is the silly part of it. Sure, they changed “Jesus” to “Shepherd,” possibly at an attempt to be inclusive, which is a nice gesture (I think), but it is still obviously a Christian song. They didn’t cover up anything. They might as well have kept “Jesus” in.
Maybe they just wanted to see what would happen. It is getting the show great publicity, after all… After being on air for so many seasons they have to do something interesting to keep the show fresh.
Sara:
:”> Well color me embarrassed…I’m humbled by your clarification and intent on the complement, but I’ll manage…
So, you said…
So if they didn’t ‘cover up’ anything, then why was the lyric changed? Is that truly a fair statement? If they might as well have kept Jesus in, then why was His name removed?
Believe me, I am not here to say that I have more conviction than anyone else, but I think this is a bigger issue than you give it credit for.
The difference between the song that was sung on American Idol and the original song may to you (or others to be fair) seem like one simple little word (or name)…but it is much greater than that.
It was for this same reason that Brittney McComb was silenced when trying to give thanks to Jesus at her graduation ceremony.
The message of Jesus Christ is NOT a universal “all roads lead to heaven” message. It is a message that says I (Jesus) am the only way to Salvation, and apart from me no one will see the Father in heaven.
That is why the name of Jesus was removed from the song, and that is why I see this as a bigger issue than a simple word being changed in an otherwise very “Christian” worship song.
Am I overreacting? It’s possible…Is my argument, as you say, Silly? Maybe…But I guess I’ll just have to point my reaction back to the ‘conviction’ you were speaking of in your post…Because in my [humble] opinion, when you remove Jesus from anything…The significance of the message is lost. The rest of the song gave much glory to God, but what besides that one lyric would have pointed anyone who didn’t already know the song or its ‘Christian’ roots to the understanding that it is Jesus Christ who is our Savior?
Just my opinion I guess…Thanks again for the conversation! And the graceful letdown that you weren’t actually talking about me when you said…”Nice touch…”
I’d like to point out that this is a stereotype. Only about half the men in England look like John Cleese, the other half look like James Bond actor, Daniel Craig. I think it’s the moustache. We don’t all work for the Ministry of Silly Walks you know.
And now you think I’m insulting you
but I’m not. I didn’t day your argument is silly, I said A.I. changing the lyrics was silly. It didn’t accomplish anything (but make news, which may be the point, in which case love for Jesus had very little to do with motivating them to perform the song anyway; it was all about press).
I love all the conversation surrounding Shout to The Lord on American Idol! And I agree with Bill C (first comment) — I get chills every time I hear it. They did 2 great performances! Of course putting “Jesus” back in where He belongs was the right thing to do. I told my wife that if Brooke, David A and Kristy would just sing “Jesus” instead of “Shepherd” nobody could stop them — way to go, you 3 — God bless you!!!
Hey, I guess these blogs do get read by people…We CAN make a difference!!!
What happened?
They sang the song again last night on the show and put the “missing link” of Jesus back in His rightful place. Now that’s what I’m talking about…
Bill, I have to hand it to you buddy…You do have connections!!!!
Heh. Maybe we can get that other guy to redo ‘Imagine’ with all the verses.
(disclaimer: I don’t watch the show)
Step 1: accept your addiction
Step 2: admit your addiction
It was Jesus that said that those who believe in him will be vilified, tortured, imprisoned and killed. I think the fact that using Shout To The Lord on the highest rated TV program in America took a lot of backbone. Sure, Jesus name was left out, but the message was there. You would have to be ignorant not to know that it was a song about Jesus. We live in an incresingly secular society where lack of tolerance for Chiristian is tolerated, and it’s only going to get worse. But, if we can change the lives of only a few, then we’re completing our purpose. It may be incremental change, one person at a time, but that’s a start.
@Jason:
No, her microphone was turned off because the school had editorial control of her speech and therefore her speech would have violated the First Amendment.
For an example where the school is actually in the wrong for censoring a Christian’s speech, see http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/04/yet_another_clueless_school_ad.php
I will grant that the case of the valedictorian is closer than many other cases, but it still falls on the side of being a correct judgment.
Ben:
I beg to differ with you bud…
Actually ‘turning off’ her microphone is what violated the First Amendment, not the content of her speech.
The school took it upon themselves to edit her speech in an attempt to once again be “more inclusive”. The content of her speech was discussed prior to the ceremony and she was told to keep the religious content out. It was not mandated by law that the school keep God or Jesus out of the speech, and the school would not have been held accountable for the free speech of one of its students. Once again, this is an example of the legal system of this country gone astray!!!
This case did not fall on the side of ‘correct judgment’ it fell on the side of silencing free speech!!!
She was giving a speech to commemorate the graduation of her entire class, speaking for all the students and the school. She was not being given a platform to speak on behalf of herself only.
‘Inclusivity’ probably played a part, too. The evil school officials probably wanted both the non-Christian and the Christian students to feel like equally valued members of the graduating class. Horrible idea, I know; the non-Christians should be made to be like barely tolerated guests wherever possible.
Darnit, the above post has the quote and the non-quote parts backward.
Fixed
Yeah, me and the American Idol guys are pretty close. Almost as close as I am with the New York Yankees, Donald Trump, and Bill Gates
Thanks, Bill!
She was awarded an opportunity to address her class because she was the valedictorian. It was an honor granted to her because she graduated at the top of her class. Yes her speech was to ‘commemorate the graduation of her entire class’ but the speech she was suppose to give was not an official school statement. It’s not as if she had the authority to change anything in the schools laws. Her speech won’t go on the record books as school doctrine. It wasn’t as if a teacher, the principal, or the schools superintendant was giving the speech. It was a student speaking from her own heart, giving glory to those who made her dreams and aspirations possible. And she was censored.
This is America Ben, not communist North Korea or China…It’s America, and this girls rights were violated at the expense of others. That is NOT freedom!
And as far as your sarcasm regarding my thoughts on the schools attempt to make the speech “more inclusive” or politically correct, my argument is not that the ‘non-Christians should be made to be like barely tolerated guests wherever possible’ as you say. In fact I take exception to your insinuation. Instead I was trying to make a point that Christians should have the same rights as every other American, and that is the right to freedom of speech without censorship or fear of legal action.
The separation of Church and state is not a first amendment right Ben. It was a political and legal concept that was written by Thomas Jefferson alone (1802) to a church. Giving them the assurance that the ’state’ would not have the legal ability to interfere with their establishment. However, today this same concept is misused by so many as a way to keep anything religious out of the public domain. And that my friend is misuse of the constitution and is not in keeping with the traditions of the founding fathers of this great nation.
“…the truth will set you free Ben”
Jason
The school did not give her a platform to say anything she wanted. They asked to see her speech - they retained editorial control. It was a school function with the school controlling who spoke, for how long, etc.
This is America, Jason, not Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Religion should not become part of government here.
The Separation of Church and State IS a first amendment concept. The phrase itself isn’t there, just like the right to privacy or the right to a fair trial aren’t there. The concept is there. The government can’t do anything respecting an establishment of religion.
Absolutely. For example, I think Christians were wronged in the artwork case I cited, or the teacher who promoted irreligion over religion with comments to his class like ‘When you put your Jesus glasses on you can’t see the truth.’ Was this teacher merely exercising his first amendment rights?
The founding fathers would be aghast at the religious interference and influence in today’s government. For example, what are the chances of the U.S. signing a peace treaty with Al Qaeda today, with an article of the treaty stating that ‘the United States government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion’? Could it happen? I doubt it. War and religion (goes together like a horse and carriage) have taken prominence over diplomacy and secularism.
And yet, if you go back to 1796, less than ten years after the United States government began with the ratification of the Constitution, we basically did just that:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
“…The pirates of the Barbary coast in general and of Tripoli (in what is now called Libya) in particular were destroying U.S. shipping and holding as prisoners U.S. seamen in the 1790s. It was a serious problem and a series of negotiators were sent to try to put together an agreement to improve it…”
Article XI of the treaty is:
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
(emphasis mine)
“…The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator…
This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.
President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: “Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.”"
(emphasis mine)
“…I found the treaty and Adams’ statement reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City and, in one case, held the actual newspaper (the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17 June 1797) in my hands. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
…It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that “the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”"
I’m reminded of an anecdote from my high school days…
During the end of my senior year, people began thinking about who would sing the class song, and who would lead the class in prayer before the official graduation ceremony began. This is rural Tennessee, Bible Belt America, so it’s not completely out of the ordinary, and no one raised a ruckus over the prayer being said. It was expected.
What was also expected, was who was going to say the prayer: one of (to this day) my very good friends, Jessica. A vote wasn’t even necessary for the whole class (a grand total of 129 students) to decide who should lead the prayer. Jessica was the obvious answer. The class of 2001 expected and wanted Jessica to lead them in prayer before graduation.
Once this came out as public knowledge throughout the town, then came the outrage. Several parents and consequently those parents’ obedient children started speaking out against Jessica leading the class in prayer. They simply would not have it. Why?
Because she’s a woman.
And one of the more largely represented denominations in my hometown were of the opinion that it was sinful for a woman to lead a mixed group in prayer in public.
At first she stood her ground - she had every right to lead the prayer, and the class had the right to have who they had chosen lead the prayer. But eventually she was harassed so much that she decided to step down, and let the next-obvious (male) person** lead the prayer. She just wanted the prayer to be said, whoever said it. If she said it, it would be about the very scandal of her having the gall to be a female praying in public, not about God.
This case is not unique in the South.
Christians don’t need secularists to silence them. They’ve been silencing one another (especially women) for generations, using the Bible itself to justify it.
**Fun fact, the guy who ended up saying the prayer? He and Jessica have been married for almost seven years now. High school sweethearts and just as in love now as they’ve ever been. A very sweet couple.
Leave a reply