Thursday, May 3, 2012

new song - my heart delights (draft 1)

Hopefully the last song on the incarnation that I'll write in a while. (And this one moves away from the incarnation pretty fast.) I stole the title line from something that I wrote a couple of years ago that went nowhere.


1. Have I stumbled into any Trinitarian heresies? In V1L6, could I have said 'put' instead of took?

2. Would you feel ripped off if this was on a cd that was meant to be on the topic of the incarnation? I've used the words 'born' and 'child'. Does that cover it?

3. I have Doug Wilson's voice in my ear telling me that this is effeminate. I'm a girl, so that's fine, but guys - what do you think?

My Heart Delights

My heart delights that Christ my Lord
would leave his heavenly throne
And come to earth, our God a man
to claim us for his own.
The king of all took off his crown
He took on human form
He clothed himself in humble flesh
And as a child was born.

My heart delights and wonders at
this love that gives himself
He sought no honor, no acclaim
no riches and no wealth.
His only thought was to obey
the path set out for him
To walk the road to Calvary
and take away our sin.

My heart delights that Christ would seek
a sinful soul as mine
My heart was all unrighteousness
But his was love divine!
Lord live in me and change me that
my heart should beat for Christ
Oh make your will be my desire
And you my one delight.

sar 2012


  1. 1. I think 'took' is better: it owns the permanence of the incarnation where 'put' sounds temporary. No heresies leap out anywhere else that I can see.
    2. Absolutely this is an incarnation song! After your lead in I was expecting far less than I found.
    3. I think you're ok on the testosterone front. I detected the strains of noble determination popping up here and there.

    That being said...
    Honour has a U in our country!
    V2 lines 5-6 don't work so well for me. They make him sound mindless rather than resolute. And I'm not sure that paths can be obeyed. And line 6 is covered by line 7 anyway.
    In V3, again lines 5-6...Lord makes it sound like we're addressing Jesus; Christ makes it sound like we aren't.
    And finally, the last pair of lines screamed instantly at me 'My Lord You Wore No Royal Crown' (a song I love). I can't imagine that you weren't thinking that too, so it's a homage, but I think it's too close. Sadly. I'd happily sing that couplet several times per service!

    My verdict: it's worth polishing. There's a number of nice concepts that would rescue us from having to sing And Can It Be? yet another time...

    1. You catch me out on everything. You caught all of my 'can I get away with ...'

      1. Honour was auto corrected. Annoying.
      2. Yay! (Sick of trying to squeeze in the word 'stable' and not going to the cross.)
      3. good.

      V2 5-6 - I'm trying to capture here the idea that Jesus wasn't *just* thinking of us (though, being God, he was). It was obedience to the father that was driving him. I'm going to leave this one through another draft and see how it goes.

      V3 5-6. Yeah I know. I'll need to fix this. I had spirit in for a while, then took it out.

      final lines. I didn't mean to copy. I wrote it then realised and looked it up. Idle does the words desire/delight in the other order. D'oh. You noticed. (I was wondering if anyone would.)


  2. My problem is more with v1l5. Did he take off his crown? I know you agree that he didn't stop being God when he became man, but my first read made me question what you meant.

    1. Good question. I think I've covered myself by saying in another line that he was God and man.

      The picture I have in my mind is a king taking off his crown and living with the commoners. He doesn't stop being king but he no longer looks like one.

      Is that okay?

    2. I think it is, a la Php 2. There's a sense in which there needs to be a spot free on his head to receive the crown at his ascension ;-)