Chicago 17, “In The Garden”, and Subtle Damage
by Greg Linscott
When I was in high school, my best friend introduced me to the pop/rock group Chicago. If my memory serves me correctly, between the end of my sophomore and senior years, he and I wore out no less than 8 copies of the Chicago 17 tape between the two of us. Even today, I can still reproduce from memory some of the lyrics. I will spare you the exercise of reproducing such winners as “Hard Habit to Break,” “Stay the Night,” and so on. I’m guessing that at least some of you who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s are familiar with the material in question. But let’s look at the fairly innocent song, “You’re The Inspiration”:
You know our love was meant to be
The kind of love to last forever.
And I want you here with me
From tonight until the end of time.
You should know
Everywhere I go
Always on my mind
In my heart, in my soul, Baby-You’re the meaning in my life,
You’re the inspiration.
You bring feeling to my life-
You’re the inspiration.
While I have you near me
I wanna have you hear me say (yeah)-
“No one needs you more than I need you.”
As someone who now has been married to his lovely wife going on 13 years this February, I must say this really bears little resemblance to what real love between a man and woman is all about. The first verse I’ve quoted here, as I reflect, really bears much more similarity to a sort of adolescent yearning- ah, let’s just call it what it is- it’s lust. “I want you here with me from tonight…” “While I have you near me…” It’s very deceptive, though, because it confuses the immediate satisfaction and gratification of lust with a “love that lasts forever.”
The problem is, this song (and others like it) helped shape my conception and expectation of love for a woman- love for my wife. It helped shape my affection for her in such ways that I may not have realized. Ultimately, as I grow both in my relationship with my God and my wife, I understand more each day that loving my wife has very little to do with infatuation and her constantly “bring(ing) feeling to my life.” Instead, I must realize that as Paul says in Ephesians 5, loving my wife is something that demands sacrifice. Whether or not she is “always on my mind, in my heart, in my soul” has little to do with it- I must choose to love her as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it. I love her whether she “deserves” it or not- whether she is “the inspiration” or not.
OK, Linscott, what’s your point?
Earlier this month, my friend Bob explained that the beloved gospel song “In The Garden” should still be valued because it has been treasured by so many older saints. He noted:
…I think it is a good song because, despite the critics, the Church of Jesus Christ seems to see in it more pure emotions than those of secret lovers. There is nothing manifestly evil about the song. There is nothing unbiblical. That thousands of Christians find in it a manifestation of true Christian feelings (or feelings that they wish were true) is not a problem to me.
Here is what I see. I am sure many sincere people miss or overlook the very flawed view of love contained in songs like “You’re The Inspiration.” Some married couples even today may think of such a song as “their song”- and granted, the song seems to have less objectionable elements if we read it into a married context- at least on the surface.
However, even assuming that “You’re The Inspiration” was being sung in a marriage context (after all, to the pure all things are pure, as my friend Bob pointed out), what we are left with, at best, is a very incomplete perspective of love. Love is all about how the one I love makes me feel- it’s all about feeling tingly and warm and fuzzy and “inspired.” It has no concept of work, of tears, of sacrifice, of loving when you don’t feel like loving. Such a “love song,” I would argue, is actually damaging to the sensibilities because it presents a wrong view of the kind of love a man and woman should have for one another. Proverbs 5:18-19 (ESV), for example, tells us
Let your fountain (Greg’s note- that is, your wife) be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.
In the order of things, a man is to find his satisfaction in his wife only after he has made sure she has been blessed. He is to care for her- provide for her- as his own flesh. Paul says in Ephesians 5 that this is common sense, men! Yet this is not the way we view “romantic love” in our modern American culture.
My contention is that songs like “In The Garden” do the same thing to our view of our relationship with God that songs like “You’re The Inspiration” do to our view of love between a man and a woman. They affect our thinking, concepts, and resulting actions in ways we may not even be aware of. And while sincere people may not always see it, that doesn’t mean the damage is any less real.
Greg Linscott 
Greg,
You would love being in the seminary here in MN. . . . Bauder is going to push the seminary in the direction and a goal of training the affections towards radical monotheism.
Excellent. Excellent.
Well, Greg,
you know that “everybody needs a little time away, I heard her say from each other…” could that work into the LS Chafer’s view of carnal Christians?
Greg – A quick question:
The passage from Proverbs that you site contains obvious elements of romantic/sensual love by a man for his wife — albeit after she has been “blessed”. Other scriptural passages do as well (e.g. Song of Solomon).
Are you saying that every hymn or gospel song has to address all aspects of our love for God or else it is damaging to our sensibilities towards Him? In other words, using your metaphor from Chicago, is “You’re The Inspiration” bad because it only addresses the romantic/sensual side of marital love and not the whole aspect of it including the sacrificial/”hard-work” side? Similarly, is “In The Garden” bad because it only addresses the personal, loving walk and communication a Christian has with God (which I agree with brother Bixby to be a part of the biblical pattern) rather than the whole scriptural spectrum of his walk/love for God, which would involve many other things including fear, reverence, and humility?
I struggle a little bit with your line of reasoning because I feel anyone could turn it around and use it to play “gotcha” with any hymn/gospel song (whether pre or post-1850) which doesn’t address all aspects of its intended subject.
Obviously, as brother Bixby pointed out, a diet consisting only of “In The Garden” type songs would be unhealthy. But maybe the song can be helpful occasionally as part of a balanced walk with God.
Kent,
As I understand the “You’re The Inspiration” illustration, eroticism is an important component of the marital relationship, but the song confuses eroticism with “the kind of love to last forever.” Sensuality and immediate physical gratification is equated with love, which it is not. It is a good thing, I believe, for a man to aspire to love a woman for a lifetime. But if he does it the way this song portrays “love,” he will not be loving her the right way. He will be loving her as long as she meets his needs and “inspires” him.
In similar fashion, “In The Garden” presents, not an incomplete view (which I take you to be implying), but a distorted view of the kind of intimacy we should have with God. Drawing near to God, speaking Biblically, is never compared to the kind of sensual experience described in “In The Garden.” It is not to say that there is no Christian experience whatsoever- but “In the Garden” and similar songs present a skewed view- a wrong conception of our love for God and the life of faith. It does not help us conceive, expect, and pursue Him as we ought, but instead reduces it to a familiar (but categorically mismatched) metaphor.
Not sure I would have expected a treatise on a Chicago album to be on your blog, but it is an interesting tie in. I knew the Manager for Chicago in my earlier days (he runs a great hot dog place that I frequented often in Chicago), and I have listened to all of their albums way back when they were the Chicago Transit Authority, up to Chicago 18. At the time I loved their live brass section. I have no idea what they are up to now, but alas, I digress. I agree with your assesment, although I never got to the point of a Chicago song altering my view on the world, I always viewed it as a false view of love and relationships. But I do agree that all to often these types of short term infactuation views are taken as the true meaning of love.
Brother Greg: Thanks for the response.
It seemed your original post discussed “Your The Inspiration” as “a very incomplete perspective of love” and then applied that to “In The Garden”. I was responding to that line of thinking.
Though I understand your points in the comment above, I’m not sure I quite agree with the implications you draw from the “Your The Inspiration” metaphor, but that’s fine. I actually do believe that a partial driver behind a healthy, long-running, Christian marriage is the romantic/sensual side (note: I said “partial”, not “main” or “the only”). So, if a song extols that part of a marriage that’s OK with me as long as that’s not the only kind of song I’m listening to about marriage.
I think the discussions at Bixby’s blog show that many good people believe “In The Garden” does present a legitimate facet of the believer’s walk with God (note: “facet”, not “complete description”). And many of those people (including myself) certainly don’t see the sensual overtones that you do in that song. You disagree, and at the end of the day, that is OK. We all need to be convinced in our minds that what we love and practice is of the Lord.
Thanks for the discussion.
Kent,
Just to be clear, I am not necessarily using “sensual” as equal to “sexual” when I speak of “in The Garden”- but more in the context of “relating to the senses” (which certainly would include, but not be limited to, sexuality).
Physical intimacy is certainly a driver behind a good marriage. It’s just not something that an adolescent should be confusing with love, or allowing to shape his concept of it. In the overall context and perspective of love as seen on the album Chicago 17, love is about “Stay(ing) the night,” an addictive drug (“Hard Habit to Break”), and so on. This is not helping us grow into men that provide, protect, and cherish our wives. It causes us to become men who desire to be doted on, forcing women into unreasonable expectations of physical appearance to satisfy our lusts, etc etc.
Also, the point I am trying to make, Kent, is that the “facet” of which you speak, is really not legitimate. It teaches us nothing of what our devotion to Christ consists of, how we are to get there, and what is required to maintain it. It isn’t really useful for anything but to reinforce a sentimental notion that may or may not be an attempt to describe something we have actually experienced in some way. Contrast “In The Garden” with Wesley’s text:
There is certainly an intimacy spoken of here. But there is also a much better context to relate to (safety and protection from the storms of life), a sense that we possess manifold obstacles within ourselves to true intimacy taking place, and a realization that it is only through humble submission we can ever hope to achieve this closeness with Him.
“In The Garden” does nothing of the sort. Even if one blindly ignores the obvious metaphor of the song, the song teaches us what? One only has to show up, and intimacy with God can be yours for the taking. He’ll coddle you, stroke you, and whisper reassuringly to you, whether you are in trouble or not, whether you are in sin or not, and He’ll always bid you go through the voice of woe (the parallel in the Christian life of which which still makes absolutely no sense to me).
“In The Garden” Is not useful because it teaches us nothing of Christian experience as described in the Bible. It teaches us nothing of our Savior’s relationship to us as described in the Bible. It reinforces bad ideas about “feeling” and “God told me” such and such and “God led me” to do thus and so that have no real basis in Truth.
Greg — I don’t want to get into a back and forth on your blog and rehash what was already said over at Bixby’s blog, where several good people disagreed with your assessment.
Again, as I said before, at the end of the day we all have to be convinced in our minds that our loves and our practices are of the Lord.
And given the nature of blog interactions, here are my disclaimers:
1 — As far as I can remember, I have not sung ITG since I was in high school, either privately or corporately.
2 — I know full well that there are many hymns and gospel songs which are far superior to ITG. Those hymns and songs should receive the place of primacy in any Christian’s devotional and worship life.
3 — I would not lay down on the tracks to defend ITG (thus my reticence for another full-on debate about it over here).
4 — I would not want to sing ITG in a corporate worship service, but I think it is fine from time-to-time to use in private as a devotional aid.
5 — My church does NOT sing ITG (probably because our pastor was more of a Boston fan in high school, rather than Chicago 🙂 ).
6 — I am NOT arguing that Chicago’s songs represent an ideal way to talk about marriage. I was only reacting to your metaphorical use of one song (and not all songs on Chicago 17) and how that applied to your analsyis of ITG.
7 — I never liked Chicago.
Peace.
Kent,
I’m really not trying to be argumentative- but if we used your reasoning, we would also have to argue that many sincere believers (“good people”) believe in charismatic gifts, baptize infants, and employ rock n’ roll or some variant thereof in their worship.
I understand many people see it as representative of a “legitimate facet.” However, I would also observe that even you and Bixby have said you would not use it in corporate worship settings (if I understand you correctly). I am saying that people who do see the song as “legitimate” often do so for reasons other than the song is true– tradition, emotional attachment, warm fuzzies…
As to not seeing the metaphor- well, I don’t know how else to help you there. Almost every hymn or gospel song employs some kind of metaphor (“this” is like “that”), and it seems obvious (from C. Austin Miles own admission, even) that the metaphor in “In The Garden” is one of an close personal encounter between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. One doesn’t have to have a perverse imagination to see that. One can say, however, that to conceive of meeting Jesus as one (hopefully a female “one”) might fantasize about swooning with Fabio on the cover of a romance novel hardly does justice to our Lord- in fact, to some of us, it seems to fall somewhere between ridiculous and blasphemous. This is why it is hard for “some of us” to understand why “some of you” can just choose to write off this whole matter as
However, we do also need to realize (particularly those of us who lead and influence in the church) that there are sincere believers who get it wrong- just like there are men who want to love their wives, but end up doing so in a wrong way because they approach it with the wrong idea.
“This is why it is hard for “some of us” to understand why “some of you” can just choose to write off this whole matter as
we all have to be convinced in our minds that our loves and our practices are of the Lord.”
Wow, you have me “writing off the whole matter with no thought” and therefore would “believe in charismatic gifts, baptize infants, and employ rock n’ roll or some variant thereof in [my] worship”. Come on, brother, that is assuming a lot about my thought process (I Cor. 13:7), which I did not share with you. Remember, I said I didn’t want to rehash the Pensees discussion here.
Thus my statement above was an appeal to Rom. 14:5-10 because I think some (Note: SOME, not all or even most) of the nuanced parsing about music falls under the principles in that passage.
My original comment was truly just to clear up a question in my mind about your line of thinking. I should have stopped after that one.
I did not imply you would hold to any of the teachings I listed, Kent- I meant to say that these are matters of consequence, though they may not be inherently linked to the Gospel. Similarly, I do believe that hymns and music, as representative of our personal piety and devotion, do require scrutiny- and that particularly those of us in positions of influence should not just dismiss these matters because, though we wouldn’t use them, who’s to say that someone else shouldn’t?
To borrow Bob’s analogy, if the beam itself is rotting or infested with termites, simply choosing to look along it isn’t acceptable in the long term.
Greg — You said “if we used your reasoning, we would also have to argue….”. Seems like an implication to me. If I’m straining at semantics, I apologize. And just for the record, I’m certainly not “just dismissing these matters” either. I’m just not willing to get into my thinking with you here.