Radio that's "Safe for the Whole Family" Part II

One of the issues of popular music is that if we're not careful, we can thin the text to a place where complex ideas and thoughts are forced into a synonym corner. Crafting text carefully to be clever is one thing, crafting text to be clever while maintaining depth of meaning is another--and evidently much more difficult.

What in the world am I talking about? Let me give examples. This was first brought to my attention several years ago with the song "I Stand Amazed." Written by my buddy Travis Cottrell and Dennis Jernigan.

I see the stars that You have made
I know You call them each by name
To think Father God who heaven displays
Is thinking of me in intimate ways


Chorus:
I stand amazed in all of your glory
That you would die for me   I stand amazed

Now I am in no position to "explain" the trinity, nor am I a theologian, but we need to be careful of what it is we're learning from song lyrics that flow well, but inadvertently teach un-truths.

What is wrong with this passage? Did God make the stars? Yes. Does he know them each by name? Sure. Is "Father God" thinking of us "in intimate ways?" Yes, we can surmise from scripture that this is the case. Did "Father God" die for me? No.

Heresy you say? Not at all. Jesus died for us, not "Father God." Poetic license? Jesus is God, right? Yes, but Jesus prayed to the Father to let this cup pass before he went to the cross. Jesus the Son was crucified, not "Father God."

There are further examples from the songs of yesterday's post. These are songs that are currently on Christian radio stations, and in the top 20, no less.

All About Jesus, Steve Fee:

giver of every breath I breathe
author of all eternity
giver of every perfect thing
to you be the glory


maker of heaven and of earth
no one can comprehend your worth
king over all the universe
to you be the glory


I'm alive because i'm alive in You


it's all because of Jesus I'm alive
it's all because the blood of Jesus Christ
that cover's me and raised this dead man's life
it's all because of Jesus I'm alive


every sunrise sings Your praise
the universe cries out your praise
i'm singing freedom all my days
now that I'm alive

Verses describe attributes and actions typically ascribed to God the creator, yet the chorus changes gears to being all about Jesus.

You Reign, MercyMe

Even before there was a drop in the ocean even before there was a star in the sky even before
the world was put in motion You were on Your throne You were on Your throne.


[chorus]
You reign glory in the highest You reign let creation testify by Your name every knee will bow
and every tongue proclaim that Jesus reigns.


Even before Your hand made the heavens even before the breath of all mankind even before we
had to be forgiven You were on Your throne You were on Your throne. [back to chorus]


Yesterday, today and forever Your are God who was, and is and is to come. [back to chorus]

Very similar to Fee, a kind of lyrical "mode mixture" switching between actions and attributes of God the Father (Creation in the verses), but proclaiming "Jesus reigns" in the choruses. Is this a problem? Maybe not. Perhaps that is the point of the song, that Jesus is God, and God is also Jesus, however the change from one character to the other is not very clear, and the listener can easily presume that we're talking about the same Person of the Trinity, that Jesus the Son=God the Creator (Elohim not withstanding)

Song of Hope, Robbie Seay Band:

I will sing a song of hope
Sing along
God of heaven come down
Heaven come down
Just to know that You are near is enough
God of heaven come down, heaven come down


All things new
I can start again
Creator, God
Calling me Your friend
Sing praise, my soul
To the Maker of the skies
A song will rise

[excerpted]

So again, God of Heaven came down, but not as "Creator, God," or as "Maker of the Skies" but as Jesus. This is omitted in the song. God the Father is in heaven, Jesus came to earth, sent down from God, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.

Love is Here, Tenth Avenue North:

come to the waters, you who thirst and you'll thirst no more.
come to the father, you who work and you'll work no more.
and all you who labor in vain and to the broken and shamed:


love is here.
love is now.
love is pouring from
his hands, from his brows.
love is near,it satisfies.
streams of mercy flowing from his side.
cuz love is here.
[Excerpted]

Either this is brilliantly poetic (I'll give them that) or it is modally inaccurate. The verse talks of coming to the Father, but the chorus depicts the crucifixion of the Son, yet makes no distinction between the two.


What difference does all this make? Is this me splitting hairs, or is this "hair-esy?" I think it's something we need to watch out for. Being aware of which person is being sung about is important, just like we would want to keep clear which of the Godhead we were discussing in a conversation. The danger is that even if these songs aren't sung in church, the undiscerning or ignorant listener my receive falsehood when he believes the source to be reliable and full of truth.

If these songs work their way into a corporate worship context, we run the risk of misappropriating the richness of the "Word of Christ" and misappropriating the use of music to "teach and admonish." (Col 3:16) Instead these songs may "breach and astonish," and will not edify the body with Truth, and in fact add to confusion, resulting in people like me writing posts like this.

Radio that's "Safe for the Whole Family" Part I

While driving around town with @fiscalfitness the other day, we were inexplicably listening to one of the local Christian radio stations. A discussion ensued about various tag lines used by most contemporary Christian radio stations: "Safe for the whole family," "Positive, encouraging," "family friendly," etc., and why they aren't more overtly "Christian" in nature. Why not something like "furthering the gospel of Jesus," or "Magnifying Christ between Sundays," or "Proclaiming the good news of Jesus," etc.?

The assumption presented in the question is that these stations identify themselves as truly Christian. Maybe that isn't the case. It is easy to presume that they consider themselves such but don't want to say the name of Jesus too loudly. But before we jump on the blame-the-radio-stations band wagon, maybe we should consider the music they play. I did a very quick survey of this week's "Top 20 Christian songs" according to "20, The Countdown Magazine" and discovered some interesting things:

• Of the top 20 songs for the week ending June 30, 2008, four of them specifically mentioned Jesus or Christ. (Fee, Casting Crowns, Matt West, Natalie Grant)
  
• Six songs mentioned "God" or "Lord" or "Father" (Matt Maher, MercyMe, Tomlin, Robbie Seay Band, Tenth Avenue North, Jado Lavik)
• Six other sings held down the pronoun ministry, using You or Your in ways that could mean just about anyone (Third Day, Jeremy Camp, Building 429, Aaron Shust, Mark Harris, Decemberadio)
• Three songs were about things other than God or Jesus, or things clearly religious in nature (SC Chapman, Need to Breathe, Afters)

So what is the conclusion? Half of the top 20 songs for the week were not overtly about God. Sure, the artists will say they were, but they weren't overtly about God or Jesus. This proves nothing, other than the fact that the radio station tag lines are accurate after all. Their music is "positive and encouraging." They're not seeking to teach theology in their music. Is that ok? Sure, I'm very comfortable with "kingdom perspective" on activities of life outside of praise and worship music that some of these songs touch on. the problem does not appear to be what the radio stations say they're doing, not at all. The "problem," if there ever really was one, is the assumption "Christian" radio stations must play music that only talks about Jesus or God in order to be Christian. This is not the case, since the station programming doesn't even refer to itself as Christian. In essence, the issue is, there is no issue.

But...

I do, however, have a problem with some of the lyrics presented in some of the songs listed above. This little investigation has forced me to read carefully the lyrics of each song, and I have discovered some subtle "confusion" in some of the lyrics which I will delve into in Part II.

Alternative Sunday School

As you get ready for church tomorrow (or today, or next week depending on when you read this!), consider what some parents are doing to educate their kids:

An estimated 14% of Americans profess to have no religion, and among 18-to-25-year-olds, the proportion rises to 20%, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. "It's important for kids not to look weird," says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it's O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have.

I am very curious to know what the basis of these "morals and values" are for those who don't believe in a Moral Law-Giver.

Read more in this article.

Seeking a theology of NT music.

I thought it would be interesting to repost a portion of comments I made on a church music blog/discussion board concerning the analysis of a contemporary piece of music. It was late as I typed this initially, but for some reason I was able to crystallize my yet unanswered questions into concise form.

First, the OT idea of doing something skillfully related to music always has to do with performance. The musicians were skillful in the way they played or sang. Never [to my knowledge] is there a mention of the songs played or sung being written skillfully. Yeah, it may be splitting hairs, but isn't it interesting that the text goes out of its way sometimes to describe the skill of the musicians while saying very little about the music itself?

Second, and this may have been thoroughly covered elsewhere in previous discussions, so I apologize for bring it up, but how do we derive a New Testament theology of musical practice from Old Testament descriptions where the New Testament is curiously silent? What are we to conclude about the absolute qualifications of music and musicians from the Jewish/Chosen setting of the Old Testament to the Church/Gentile setting of the comparatively silent (on music) setting of the New Testament?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Church in Vegas

Part of the reason for coming to Las Vegas the day before the NAB show started was to have an opportunity to go to a church. The cool thing was that we had [almost] our whole music programming and media staff with us (we had to leave some behind to run the ship! (thanks Mike and Nathan!)

The church we decided to go to is a larger church by attendance. The Church's name is Central Christian. It is located off a major highway and finding it didn't seem to present too many problems. We were able to go to first time visitor's parking right up by the building. It looked like regular attenders had to park in the "dust" parking lot, which was really just a cleared dirt area. There's plenty of dirt here.



The service began about ten to fifteen minutes ahead of the scheduled start time with a couple of praise songs led by the worship band. The band featured a leader playing acoustic, an electric lead, an electric rhythm player, a bass player, drummer, B-3/keyboard guy (who also doubled as a vocalist), a "front" female (soprano), plus to "back" vocals, two guys and another girl, who was covering alto. So all together, there were four guys and two girls, vocally.



From a technical standpoint, the look was outstanding. It should come as no surprise that a church in the Las Vegas area who wants to push the presentation envelop not only has plenty of resources to draw from in terms of expertise, but also is uniquely aware of what is possible. Walking into the room, you're greeted with a techno-idustrial look, house lights way down, a blue look on the stage, and a sense that something was about to happen.

The house presentation featured four front screens. Two on the off-stage outside provided I-mag and song lyric content, while the screens on the stage in the background provided visual effects, complemented by the LED display installed in symmetrical fashion in the back ground. The visual coordination and feel and look of the stage was nice.



One of the things that frustrate many churches is the ability to mix sound in a large room. This room was no exception. From what I remember, there was a great deal of low end, which is great. There was plenty of bass, but as you continued on up the frequency spectrum, the clarity diminished severely. The lead voice was always pushed out front, but secondary voices were hard to pick out. We watched all morning as the B-3 player worked and worked on his instrument, but we never once heard it. OK--I heard it once. Literally, once.

The players were having a great time, they were all connected musically to one another by IEMs which meant that they each probably had the sound in their ears exactly the way they wanted it.

So the "sermon" was presented as an interview between the senior pastor and someone I had never heard of, "Dog, the Bounty Hunter." He apparently has a big show on A&E where he, as a former felon, is tasked with hunting down other wanted criminals.

He came across as being somewhere between a WWF wrestler and a NFL running back. Cocky, self-assured, but articulate, a good story teller, and larger than life. He conveyed to all of us from Providence a vague understanding of God. He did this by acknowledging any good thing that happened in his life seemed accidental or fortuitous at best, as being directed by God somehow--with the help of his "crazy" praying, Christian mother.

What frustrated me was that the pastor did nothing to steer the conversation toward Christ. We brought our Bibles, but never once cracked them open, even the music, as slick as it was, tended toward pronoun-centricity, never rich with theology, never a hint, really, of theology. Here was a church who had thousands of people attend over five weekend services, and they all heard exactly the same thing: God (or the big guy upstairs, as "Dog" referred to him) has got your back.

When the interview was over, and the guest accepted the cheers and adoration of the "congregation," there came from the senior pastor an inexplicable offer to pray a prayer of salvation by repeating after him. There was no context for it, it just seemed perfunctory and out of no where.

So here's the question: Is this all a problem? Really?

The lady beside me repeated after the pastor to receive Christ. Did she? Who did she come for? "Dog," or Christ? Is it ok to lure the entertainment-centric Vegas community in with something fun to then say, "oh yeah, don't forget about Jesus...?"

Can we use any means possible to bring people into a church, entertain them, show them a glimpse of Christ, then hope they desire it for some reason, and plead with them after they've shown interest to join a small group where they'll really grow?

Are we comfortable in saying that we need a guy like "Dog the Bounty Hunter" to show up at our church because we don't believe the gospel alone is sufficient enough nor powerful enough to attract people?

He Restores My Soul

Part of Austin's Sunday School assignment is that he memorize several passages of scripture. One of those passages is Psalm 23. He had memorized this before, maybe two years ago, and could recite it fairly well, though it was clear that he had little understanding of it. This time, things are a little different.

Before bedtime we have a little devotional together and I've taken advantage of this time to help him not only relearn these Bible verses, but understand them as well. This time around, instead of memorizing the verses by rote, he can read the passage himself. We are going line by line through the Psalm in a somewhat condensed inductive method, exploring each phrase as he commits it to memory. We encountered the first phrase of the third verse a couple of weeks ago and I've found myself meditating on it over and over ever since.

He restores my soul.

There is a great deal of truth and insight wrapped up in this simple phrase. Here are some thoughts word by word.

He

This pronoun refers back to vs 1. It references "The LORD," Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, here seen as a gentle Shepherd. I was thinking about how our image of this passage is often mixed with the story Jesus told about the shepherd who went to find the one lost sheep. Knowing that one out of 100 was missing and longing for its safety, he went and searched for it until it was returned delicately to the fold. I am not a scholar enough (at all) to know if this is an unprecedented way to view Yahweh. In the Psalms we see "the LORD" as a rock, a deliverer, light, salvation, owner of the earth, etc. Only in two other Psalms is Jehovah referred to as a "Shepherd" (Ps 28 and 80). Nevertheless, the picture being painted, and the dimension being revealed of the LORD in this Psalm is of One who cares for, guides and protects those who would be led by Him.

Restores

There are a great deal of implications emanating from this single word. I think of the following, implicit in this single word: past and future; on-going; teleology; exclusivity of the Spirit; necessity of action; compliance of the recipient.

Some further expansion:

• Past and Future. The need for restoration is rooted in the past. When man sinned and each of us found ourselves with his nature, the necessity of restoration was (is) required to reestablish fellowship with the Creator. Restoration has a place of resolution seen far into the future (from the human perspective) and in fact will not be totally realized until after death
• On-going. Not a singular event. Rather, a constant, needful prodding and shaping that took place, is taking place, and will continue to take place
• Teleological. It is not an arbitrary process. There is a purpose and unique journey and role for each one being restored
• Exclusivity of the Spirit. Only God can restore. Previous verses speak of the physical needs being met. (Not being in want, green pastures, quiet waters) This restoration of the soul touches a place only the Divine can intersect. Physical contentment mentioned in surrounding verses merely masks the depth of need healed only by the Creator whose image we bear.
  
• Necessity of action. This process of restoration is central to fellowship with the LORD, the shepherd, and essential if we are to have hope of eternal fellowship with Him (v 5).
• Compliance of the recipient. He does not force restoration upon us, he freely gives it, but we must accept it. I have wondered if we are best made aware of our need for restoration once we settle in the green pastures and rest by the quiet waters. Perhaps here in the quiet moments can our need of restoration cut through the din of our assiduous lives.

My

This continues to be a personal Psalm in which we realize that even though shepherds never attend just one of the sheep, this Shepherd has made himself continuously available to the individual.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness...

Similar observations can be made throughout the remainder of the Psalm.

Soul

As mentioned earlier, this is a dimension unique to this Shepherd. Where other shepherds can only meet the needs of the physical, this Shepherd is uniquely qualified to minister directly to the spiritual needs of those He tends.

What nuggets of scripture have impacted you or ministered to you like this has to me?

A great thought

A great line from Dr. Swenson's seminar this morning:

"Jesus didn't try to heal every leper in the world during his earthly ministry."

A good thought as it relates to quantifying your work and ministry.

CCM perspectives

Matt Brown, you've done it to me again. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'm going to re-post what I wrote as a comment on Matt's blog, however incoherent it may be and let the games begin.

This started with a commentary written here, by a guy who I don't think I know, but appears to be from our old stomping grounds. Read his thing first. Here's my commentary:

Yeah--in an effort to be profound, this guy hasn't thought things through all the way. Is Zondervan publishing based on a malicious platform because they publish "christian" material _and_ make money? What about Christian travel agencies that book tours of the holy land?

The problems start with this statement--and I'll comment as we go:

Certain concepts are intrinsic to the operation of the CCM industry, namely that Christian music is a ministry,

Yeah--let's make sure that's dispelled. Companies do exist to make money. Christian radio stations sell advertising, for example. Slapping a "christian" label on something does not preclude its ability to compete with a business model that allows it to survive.

and Christian musicians are ministers (in the church leadership sense)

No. Some, maybe, but the real smart ones--I mean the ones who desire to minister in the church-- avoid being signed all together. Once signed, the label can take much more control about where the artist goes and "ministers" and this is usually at the expense of the many smaller congregations scattered around the country who could go NUTS to have an artist come to their church. Problem is, their venue is too small, so the label sees a loss. This isn't anybody's fault, it's just a reality of the business. If an artist commits to a label, they know what the consequences (good and bad) will be.

who are accorded the same privileges and responsibilities as pastors.

And we cannot blame the artists for this. This is brought to bare by others who bring these kinds of presumptions to the table.

--
In a broader stroke, let's assume that a Christian artist (CCM artist) is a Christian. What does THAT mean? It means that they can sing about anything they want. Just like I can play jazz piano in a club. Just like a (Christian) doctor can practice in a hospital. He doesn't have to go to a "Christian" hospital to work, he just needs to be a Christian doctor where ever he is. He isn't less of a Christian because he doesn't use his gifts on a mission field. The one place that could use Christian artists/musicians is the music industry. The reason Christian artists can sing about or write about anything they want is because that is the reality of life. We don't go through life without some interaction with the "secular." So why should it be ignored in the music?

The point is that CCM artists can sing about God, about biblical things, or they can sing about how they felt when they broke up with their love, or how their car broke down--the difference is their world view--their perspective on life, their view of broader heavenly context.

So--what am I saying--I don't know it's late and I need to go to bed. In a nutshell:

CCM labels are in it for the money: duh.
CCM artist=ministers: no--not in the same way a called pastor is--not all the time.
CCM can be about anything and fall under the umbrella of "kingdom perspective" and not be inappropriate.

For more on this read Charlie Peacock's At the Crossroads: Inside the Past, Present, and Future of Contemporary Christian Music.