Photo by Diego Duarte Cereceda
Many of you might be wondering why I am reviewing Hozier’s Take Me to Church. Hozier is not a Christian artist; However, two people have requested a review of this song. Upon examining the lyrics for myself, it certainly has the appearance of a Christian undertone when one purely listens to the song, without examining the lyrics. Let’s dig deeper and see what we can uncover.
Note to new users: This is a different kind of review site! Read About the Berean Test and Evaluation Criteria prior to reading this review.
1. What message does the song communicate?
Hozier is correct about the way that organized religion (Christianity included) treats sex, especially individuals with same-sex orientation. It has become a reproach so repulsive, some have behaved as though same-sex behavior is the “one, unforgivable sin” or, perhaps, the worst of them all. It is the church’s failure to show kindness that contributed to Hozier’s embrace. We ought to bear some responsibility for that.
Having said that, the “Church” to which he refers to is one without absolutes, boundaries, or restrictions. He rejects the organized religion’s expressed form of Christianity in favor of an idolatrous, man-centered, man-made religion, one where he worships his lover and embraces a lifestyle of sin. The lyrics do not show any indication that he considers Christianity outside of the attacks of religious individuals.
Score: 3/10
2. How much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?
Very little of it lines up with Scripture. There are references to Bible passages within the song itself and I give credit Hozier for speaking out against organized religion for its terrible methods of “converting” those with same-sex orientation; however, Biblical Christianity is rejected for man-centered “theology”.
Lyrics posted with permission.*
[Verse 1]
My lover’s got humor
She’s the giggle at a funeral
Knows everybody’s disapproval
Speaks out against the hypocrisy of the church. While there certainly is hypocrisy that must be addressed, this is a common (and unchristian) response to it. It is here that he speaks of his religion: his lover.
I should’ve worshipped her sooner
If the heavens ever did speak
She’s the last true mouthpiece
Refers to his lover, one whom he regrettably waited to worship. This is contrary to the second commandment given by God to the Israelite people in Exodus 20:3-7 and under the new covenant, in 1 Corinthians 10:14 and 1 John 5:21.
Every Sunday’s getting more bleak
A fresh poison each week
“We were born sick”
You heard them say it
Refers to original sin, as described in Genesis 3. He refers to organized religion’s expression of this doctrine as “poison”, a point to which I agree with Hozier.
My church offers no absolutes
She tells me “Worship in the bedroom”
The only Heaven I’ll be sent to
Is when I’m alone with you
I was born sick, but I love it
Command me to be well
This is further evidence of an idolatrous church. It is worship of a lover, free from sexual restrictions that Christianity (and other religions) might place on them. He is perhaps mocking those who call this a “sickness”. This includes the Bible, which declares the human heart as a sickness (Jeremiah 17:9), filled with sin (Romans 3:23) and points to Christ as the cure (see Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, and Luke 5:31).
[Pre-Chorus]
Aaa, Amen, Amen, Amen
“Amen” means “so be it”.
[Chorus]
Take me to church
This refers to a man-made church that Hozier desires.
I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
This is a dig at those who attend church services as described in line 1. No matter what, these “dogs” are loyal servants, regardless of what “lies” are fed to them. There is some truth to this; however, it is a hasty generalization against all religions, including Christianity.
I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Hozier is against confession to a priest or minister. He believes that the sins told to them allow organized religion an opportunity to blackmail him.
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life
This insults eternal life with God (the deathless death) and mocks giving God our lives.
Take me to church
I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life
Repeats lines 1-5.
[Verse 2]
If I’m a pagan of the good times
My lover’s the sunlight
Hozier embraces paganism, though probably as a westernized general sense of the word, not its religion. Given that he worships his lover, the “sun” could be a reference to Sol Invictus, the Roman sun god.
To keep the goddess on my side
She demands a sacrifice
Hozier’s object of affection requires sacrifice to maintain worship.
Drain the whole sea
Get something shiny
Perhaps a metaphor for complete and total devotion to his goddess. His entire self is drained and he receives his reward: something shiny.
Something meaty for the main course
That’s a fine looking high horse
What you got in the stable?
Speaks out against self-righteous religious people. These are the only lyrics that line up with Scripture. Jesus was also against such individuals, as indicated in Matthew 23:1-36, Luke 16:14-15, and Luke 18:9-14.
We’ve a lot of starving faithful
Hozier admits that others share his same ideology.
That looks tasty
That looks plenty
This is hungry work
Builds on previous lines, referring to the “high horses” as described in lines 7-9 as the sacrifices used to satiate those described in line 10.
[Bridge]
No masters or kings when the ritual begins
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin
In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene
Only then I am human
Only then I am clean
Furthering his expression against religion, this final dig epitomizes Hozier’s beliefs. God does not exist. What he is doing is innocent and not wrong. It is Christ followers such as myself who refer to this embrace as a “sad earthly scene”. it is through embracing this worldview that he can fully embrace his humanity and become clean.
Score: 3/10
3. How would an outsider interpret the song?
Unbelievers will have no trouble interpreting this song differently than my own evaluation. To this end, I must give Hozier full credit for his clear communication; However, my evaluation criteria for this section is also about consideration to follow Jesus. Based on my analysis, unbelievers will find fewer reasons to consider following Christ upon hearing this song.
I’ll give Hozier a few points since we are partially at fault for this.
Score: 2/10
4. What does this song glorify?
Man, plain and simple. It is a complete and total rejection of God and His Commandments.
Score: 0/10
Closing Comments
Take Me to Church contains several references to the Bible and uses commonly used church lingo. However, upon closer inspection, its lyrics are antichrist. It is a rejection of the Christian worldview in favor of humanistic ideologies, in pursuit of self over God.
Hozier places some of the blame on organized religion, which is true. We ought to think more deeply about how we express ourselves to unbelievers if we want them to consider following Jesus. Hozier’s song is an example of what could happen when we go about it the wrong way.
I cannot recommend this song for worship.
Final Score: 2/10
Artist Info
Track: Take Me to Church (listen to the song)
Artist: Hozier
Album: Hozier
Genre: Independent
Release Year: 2014
Duration: 4:02
Agree? Disagree? Don’t be shy or have a cow! Calmly and politely state your case in a comment, below.
*Copyright © 2015 Andrew Hozier Byrne (IMRO) (admin by Sony/ATV). All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Updates:
10/30/2020 – Updated section 2 to include lyrics. I recently received permission from Sony/ATV. Also, updated commentary to Chorus, line 1. My previous comment didn’t make sense. Finally, I cleaned up the grammar.
01/18/2020 – Upon reflecting on commenter Venus’ considerations, I modified this review to include correct points that Hozier makes. I’ve increased the score from 0.5/10 to 2/10.
Comments
Venus
I was really hoping to see some commentary on here, but there is none. I get that you are speaking out for your faith, and this song is a commentary against the church. Still, you make a lot of assumptions you really can’t know for sure, without input from the person who wrote the song. I make assumptions as well, but I’m not trying to pass them off as total truth when I don’t have the full picture and my opinion isn’t total truth. While my views on some things may be seen as controversial, I still think they deserve some deeper consideration and these issues deserve further dissection and evaluation.
I think it would be wise to try to look deeper at these criticisms of the “church” in this song. Reflect on why these criticisms are made both by non-believers and by believers, and reflect on if the church and the religious could or should do better. Understand that some of what is aired in this song are seen by many as failures of the church in general, and in some cases as failures of more extreme churches or extreme church doctrine. If something can be done to remedy those failures, shouldn’t we reflect on what, how, and if that something should be done?
I do not see this song as a complete rejection of Christ, or even a complete rejection of religion. I see it as a rejection of specific failures of the church, of religion, of the religious who follow their faith blindly and without question. If you read some of what the writer has said about this song I think you will see that those sentiments are reflected in his responses. Also, he specifically addresses his issues with the church’s responses to issues of sexuality, the body, and sexual identity as being in opposition to what is natural. The “church” chooses to shame people for their natural identity, their natural sexuality, their natural body. Why are we placing so much shame on what is natural, on what is created by God?
Having boundaries and regulations is one thing, but I think placing such extreme boundaries and shame on something that is supposed to be about our natural expression of love and human connection should be reevaluated. When those expressions of love and connection are subverted to something outside of love and human connection, that is where I think those boundaries should be placed. Focus on things like rape, abuse, hurt and hatred, rather than love or the human connection of consented sex. And no, I do not believe that people with a different sexuality or gender identity are a subversion of love and human connection.
Vince Wright
Venus,
Thank you for your challenge!
Yes, I do make assumptions; However, they are not completely unjustified. According to an interview with New York Magazine in March 2014,
“‘Take Me to Church’ is essentially about sex, but it’s a tongue-in-cheek attack at organizations that would … well, it’s about sex and it’s about humanity, and obviously sex and humanity are incredibly tied. Sexuality, and sexual orientation — regardless of orientation — is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things. But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation — that it is sinful, or that it offends God. The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love. Turning your back on the theoretical thing, something that’s not tangible, and choosing to worship or love something that is tangible and real — something that can be experienced.”
According to Hozier’s own words, the song is about sex and humanity, with organized religion suppressing sexual expression. To that end, I did see that.
Hozier also mentioned that it’s “not an attack on faith”. I agree with him. He is not attacking our personal faith in this song. What he has done is embrace his own version of “church” that is foreign to Christianity. It is one that “offers no absolutes”.
I agree with you that organized religion has not addressed LGBT individuals the right way. According to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, we are not to judge outsiders. God will judge them instead. Having said that, the only statement I found that he dislikes is that “We were born sick”. It’s not our job to tell other people that. We already know it. It is our collective behavior that drove him to this position. We ought to share the blame for that.
Hozier has shown that he’s embraced his “sickness”, according to the end of Verse 1. He loves it and celebrates it. That is why I said that “He rejects Christianity in favor of an idolatrous, man-centered, man-made religion, one where he worships his lover and embraces a lifestyle of sin.” Sex is not inherently sinful, but according to Scripture, sex outside of heterosexual marriage breaks God’s laws. At least, that is my current position.
Having rethought this review and praying upon it, I’ve modified my review to include commentary on the right points that Hozier makes. The church could do a better job showing love and compassion rather than contempt and judgment. As it says in Romans 2:4, it is the kindness of the Lord that leads to repentance. It is not the stick.
-Vince Wright
Venus
Thank you for your contemplation, rethought and prayer over my response. I appreciate that you took the time to reevaluate your original response. I totally agree with your insight as to what may have driven the artists position in this song “it is our collective behavior that has drove him to that.” This is one area that I feel the church needs to work on, is our flawed human behaviors that sometimes undermine religion and the church. As I see it it’s not religion itself that causes these perceptions of church, it’s collective flawed human behavior which pushes some people to reject the church in exchange for some sort of false God. I like to look at songs like Take Me to Church for this reason. I think a lot of secular songs that speak of religious rejection come from experiences like this, they give me pause but then make me want to look further into the underlying context driving them to positions rejecting the church, religion, the religious or faith.
Vince Wright
Venus,
Awesome! I am glad that we could meet in the middle! 🙂
-Vince Wright
Izzy
“I agree with you that organized religion has not addressed LGBT individuals the right way.”
That’s an understatement. Christians have oppressed, tortured, and murdered (and continue to do so) LGBT people and their own children for generations and still continue to do so.
Christianity is an evil hateful religion that teaches violence and hatred towards people for traits they have zero control over.
Homosexuality is found in over 1500 species.
Homophobia is found in only one.
Vince Wright
Izzy,
I appreciate the honesty put forth in your thoughts; However, I disagree with some of your conclusions. Jesus, who is the founder of Christianity, did not teach His followers “violence and hatred towards people for traits they have zero control over”. He taught us that the greatest commandments are to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.
Your issue is with Christians who behave contrary to the teachings of Jesus, that much is clear. On that front, I agree with you; However, to say that Christianity is an “evil hateful religion that teaches violence and hatred towards people for traits they have zero control over” is false. Though there are many people who name the name of Christ and don’t do what He says, Christianity is a worldview that is based on the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.
If you still believe that Christianity, as a worldview founded by Jesus, teaches “violence and hatred towards people for traits they have zero control over”, please show me in Scripture where Jesus teaches this. If you have no Scripture to back your claim, please consider that your fight is with the evil behaviors of Christians who act contrary to Christ’s commandments and not Christianity as recorded by the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
-Vince Wright
j
ok
Avery
Hi Mr. Wright,
Normally I refrain from commenting on threads like this, but you seemed very respectful in your other replies. Just for some context I am Christian. I struggled for many years with self-hatred because of my sexual orientation and the way it’s been addressed in the Church. In my experience Jesus and his teachings are about hope, grace, and forgiveness. They have filled me with so much joy throughout my life and are ultimately the reason why I remain Christian. While I affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord and savior I wanted to challenge your viewpoint a little bit. Many times people who engage in what you would consider “sinful” behavior by being in same-sex relationships are earnestly trying to follow the commandments of the Bible. There is a good argument to be made that same-sex relationships (excluding ones that include premarital sex, abuse, or any other sins that can occur within a relationship) can be just as centered on God as any heterosexual relationships. While I know you are probably well versed in the theology surrounding homosexuality I wonder if you’ve taken time to engage in the counter arguments against your interpretation of scripture? While I could never do their arguments or your own justice in my generalizations, there are some Biblical scholars who argue that homosexuality isn’t a sin. They argue that the Old Testament law against homosexuality was more ceremonial in nature than moral and is no longer applicable to today’s society. From this viewpoint homosexual marriages or relationships in which each person supports the other in following Christ could be seen as a positive for Christianity and not a negative. While I know my chances of changing your mind are very low I wish you the best.
Your sister in Christ,
Grace
Vince Wright
Avery,
Thank you for your comments!
I’ve examined counter-arguments that put forth a position in favor of same-sex marriage. Particularly, that of Matthew Vines, Rob Bell, and Joel Hunter. I weighed their arguments against the traditional view and ended up maintaining my traditional beliefs.
Thanks for asking though!
-Vince Wright
Emma
Hello! I do not have anything to argue about lol but I do have a question. If i listened to this song, not knowing the meaning of it would it be a sin?
Vince Wright
Emma,
Great question!
Technically speaking, I listened to it not knowing what it meant. I do this with almost all the songs I review. Does that mean I sinned, that I listened to it for the sole purpose of critiquing it? Of course not. However, listening to it in ignorance (that is, without thinking about the lyrics) is likely to be sinful when we consider passages like Acts 17:11 (comparing things to Scripture to see if they are so) and 1 Peter 5:8 (be sober-minded). If it’s not a sin, then at the very least, it’s a really bad idea to listen to lyrics without knowing what it means. Jesus talked about this in Matthew 6:22-23, that we need to protect our eye gates (and by implication, our ear gates) from the media we consume. We can’t do this if we don’t discern its meaning.
In my opinion, listening to it the first time isn’t so much an issue as subsequent listens. It’s like me as a male looking at a woman. If I happen to see a good-looking woman, then I can acknowledge that she is a good-looking woman. If I go and look at her a second time, then I have to ask myself why I did that. Am I lusting? Does she need help? Am I looking to date her? Similarly, for this particular song, I’d have to ask myself the reason why I listened to it again. This will help determine if it’s sinful or not.
Finally, take a gander at Proverbs 7. Read the whole thing and pay close attention to Verse 23. Then think about this question: What happened to the man who acted without knowing the meaning of what was happening?
-Vince Wright
Jolee
hello vince!!!
I was wondering why you would review this song even though it talks a lot about sex. I thought you reject any song that talks about sex and other stuff like that.
Vince Wright
Jolee,
Right! This is the review that prompted the diclaimer, that I would not review songs that glorify it. Since I already did the review, there’s no point in me taking it down.
-Vince Wright
Jolee
Vince,
thanks for the info!! have a great day!!