Yesterday, in between the Billy Graham and Greg Laurie shows came a news feed from Focus on the Family. Among the three or four stories covered on the weekend edition was news about a Portland, Oregon seven year-old girl who had set up a lemonade stand at an arts fair only to be shut down by the big bad health inspectors from the county health department.
The girl’s plight prompted a local Portland radio station, through one of its morning disc jockeys, to intervene. The girl gained approval to set up the stand outside a tire store and sell what must have been some very good lemonade. She cleared $1,800.
The Focus on the Family report concluded with the all’s-well-that-ends-well news that the little girl was going to use her money. . .
to go to Disneyland.
Unbelievable.
Why? Back in the day, the evangelical happy spin to come out of such an episode would have been that the little girl decided to give the money to missionaries to China. Or, she gave half to the missionaries and saved half for her future college tuition. Now, the evangelical, family-friendly news editors at Focus think consumption and tourism is a laudable use of stick-to-itiveness and entrepreneurial spirit?
Granted, the subjects of the story may not have been Christian. The radio station involved, Portland’s KRSK, is apparently some version of a rock ‘n’ roll station — a SECULAR one. And the girl, who is taking her mother to Disneyland, has a different last name from her mother, suggesting divorce (especially since no father seems to be involved). So Focus may not have been reporting on exemplary evangelical behavior.
But wouldn’t you think they would want to report on exemplary family behavior? And while going to Disneyland is not wicked, did the entire project of engaging the culture and restoring family values really come to making the world safe for Donald Duck? Is this progress on the culture wars front from inside command central in Colorado Springs?
Maybe, if the Graham Crusade folks were not busy sponsoring “Rock the River†tours and greasing the skids for hipster Christianity, the editors at Family News in Focus could spot the difference between worldliness and self-sacrifice. Back in the day, the Graham Crusade officials knew the difference between George Beverly Shea and Larry Norman. But once again, when rock music becomes the cultural and musical norm, Christians seem to be incapable or making simple but important distinctions.
Old Life 
While I agree with the overall thrust of your post, the side-swipe at Larry Norman seems as gratuitous as pinning the woes of contemporary Evangelicalism on rock music. It also hardly seems to make sense to stick the same label on Larry Norman as on what is called rock music today, or to ascribe the same effects to these types of music: compared to contemporary rock, Larry Norman is lyrical and harmonious.
LikeLike
Shame, shame on Focus on the Family then, I guess, for reporting about this incident this way. Yes, there is much about the cultural influences on the church in 2010 that is regrettable and disturbing, but what good does it do to plant a flag in, say, 1955 and pretend that things are (or ought to be) as they were then? People with souls are still born, live and die now, as then, and, no matter how noble the reason, will likely resist being dragged back to any golden era. When the Apostle Paul went to pagan Athens he took them as they were and expounded truth to them referencing their own monument to “the unknown God,” rather than scolding them for worshiping numerous false gods. Judo-like he used their own error to over-power, then to illustrate spiritual truths they had rather not acknowledge.
It seems lost on you that what’s illustrated by this girl-lemonade stand incident is simply that in so many ways our secular culture has become overly bureaucratic, heavy-handed and unduly officious –even to the point of pushing a little girl around. Would it have pleased you more if the little girl’s money had gone to pay the original fine imposed on her just to teach her a lesson about obedience to the state? And if, as you say, “going to Disneyland is not wicked,” then what so upsets you about it? Have you ever gone to Disneyland or Disney World, or otherwise participated in “consumption and tourism”? If so, why didn’t you halt and save that money for college tuition? Rather than operating a scoldy, spendy blog why not send the money to missionaries in China? Or better yet, become one yourself?
Your posture on this matter is reminiscent of the religious critics in Mark 14:4-6: “But some were indignantly remarking to one another, ‘Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.’ And they were scolding her. But Jesus said, ‘Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.'”
If you’re going to roll out such big guns maybe it ought to be for the right targets. Some wanderings might be better left in the wilderness, Darryl G.
LikeLike
Lee, looks like you might be the poster boy for rolling out the big guns — so I am Judas (a la Mark 14). As you concede, I did not say this was wicked. I am not like those Reformed meanies who castigate as faithless those who don’t adopt their own preachments. I am good, after all. (Insert proper emoticon here.) I even conceded that this wasn’t an instance of Christian practice. But how exactly are family values promoted by spending — during an incredible recession — $1800 on trip to Disneyworld? The girl is seven, after all. Is she working 60 hour weeks?
And whatever happened to worldliness? It might not be the same today as 1955. But is worldliness now acceptable? If Focus on the Family is on the right side of cultural or religious matters, I’m having trouble telling.
LikeLike
Like Wolf Paul wrote, I’m a little taken aback at the Larry Norman reference. Are you suggesting that all Christian rock is some monolithic mass of worldly goofiness? I’ll grant you that the majority of CCM songs and bands are little more than substandard, religious propaganda. There are, nonetheless, some shining exceptions among them. I think painting all “contemporary” artists as lacking in some vital sense is an overly broad indictment against a wide swath of talent.
There’s much I love about being Reformed (after wading through shallower Pentecostal and evangelical waters for many years), but I do take exception to the musical snobbery I find among many of my Presbyterian brethren. I’d much rather crank up some All Star United with their incisive lyrics and musical innovation than groan along with creaky George Beverly Shea while driving on a sunny afternoon. When Graham repents of his inclusive theology and Finney-esque new measures, perhaps we can revisit the matter of his musical preferences as a compelling argument against the perils of CCM.
When I want to enjoy some good Reformed hymns, I’m more inclined to listen to the fine work of Matthew Smith and Indelible Grace. Those old Floyd Cramer piano hymns tapes don’t quite cut it for me… unless, perhaps, I’m suffering from a temporary bout of insomnia.
LikeLike
Lance, is it really snobbery to say that “Blessed Assurance” is a better song than “Why Should the Devil Have all the Good Music”? In point of fact, Reformed Protestants don’t want performance music. They want tunes that congregations can sing and that carry the text of the psalter.
LikeLike
I’m not so foolish as to argue that point, Darryl. Of course it’s not. But that doesn’t mean that well-crafted music, performed by Christian artists, doesn’t have a place cranked up on my car stereo as I’m driving down the road. I’m NOT suggesting we invite the newly re-formed (not Reformed) Petra take over the morning worship service. I know the dangers of bowing to the false god of relevance in church, and have written passionately against the same in my own blog.
I love hymns, and I think they do best lend themselves to congregational worship. But I also don’t keep an organ and organist in the back of my pickup truck as I’m rolling down the highway. Truth me known, I’m usually listening to any number of excellent apologetics-oriented podcasts when I’m driving. But when I do want to hear some lively tunes, I love to listen to creative artists like Charlie Peacock or a contemporary worship album from Sovereign Grace Ministries. Or some retro Steve Camp – a fellow Reformed brother. “Stranger to Holiness” and “Living in Laodicea” remain two of my all time favorite songs – both considerably deeper than “Why Should the Devil Have all the Good Music?”.
As for the assertion that Reformed hymns are better for singing, as a non-musician I find many of the more obscure hymns in the PCA/ OPC hymnbook to be very difficult to follow. The lyrics are undeniably rich in theological content, but I have a hard time wrapping my unrefined voice around some of those tunes. Sometimes I just have to stop trying to follow along and listen, as I know I’m massacring the tune with my congregational participation. Not all of us read music or have the benefit of voice training.
LikeLike
To distill my thoughts in a more pointed way: I am a Reformed Protestant and I DO enjoy performance music in appropriate contexts. Can you explain why my stance is unbiblical? Why must sacred music stop with that which we would sing in church?
If I want to listen to rock music, must it be “secular”? Or are you suggesting that rock music is inherently bad and therefore is unsuited for Christians in any context? I used to crusade on that platform back in my pente-fundamentalist days, although I always had a hard time explaining why that story about the missionary’s kids was a compelling reason to avoid 3 beats or 4 measures or whatever it was that was supposed to be inherently satanic.
LikeLike
Lance, I guess I’m less sanctified than you. My driving music runs to the non-religious — Zach Condon, Thom York, Moderat, and even — yes — Yes. I know some who think that such music is bad for the secular soul and if one’s musical appreciation only runs from Elvis to Madonna, I believe the full range of human creativity has not received its due.
But my point is that much rock music was inspired by a cultural revolution that included rampant sex and illicit drugs. I’m not sure that form of music is fitting worship, especially worship of the sovereign God of the universe.
I believe in Christian liberty. Some liberties may be harmful without being wicked.
LikeLike
Darryl, unless I’m misunderstanding, you seem to be saying it’s always preferable to listen to [fill in name of favorite mainstream artist here] over, say, Charlie Peacock singing “Dear Friend,” as he encourages believers to hold to the blessed hope of Christ’s return.
Don’t misunderstand me: It’s been many years since I held to the notion that music is bad simply because it’s “secular.” If you want to crank up some Metallica or Neil Diamond or classical, jazz or whatever, go for it. I’m the world’s biggest, over-the-age-of-12 Weird Al fan, which probably says a lot about the sophistication of my musical tastes. I’m not opposed to secular music, in principle (naturally, some music is so lyrically profane that is doesn’t merit a place in this discussion).
One of the clues that it was time for me leave my old Willow Creek-style church was when I started “correcting” the songs during the worship service (e.g., “he came from heaven to earth to show the way” I loudly sang as “…to BE the way”). I don’t have a problem pointing out that a song is biblically off-base.
Yet we have Paul’s admonition that we should encourage one another by “singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Should psalms, hymns and spiritual songs be only sung at designated times, a few times a week, and only accompanied by an organ? Must we always sing an old song unto the Lord, or is it OK to sing him a new song now and then, provided that the lyrics are grounded in biblical truth?
LikeLike
Lance, what I’m saying is that during the week I’d prefer my music to be good. If Charlie P. is good, I may listen. But I’m not looking for uptempo renditions of Christian song during the week as part of my devotion. I am not sure how U2 glorifies God, except in creating very good pop music. The same goes for the videos or films I choose to watch. I’d much prefer The Wire to the Left Behind series. During the week it’s aesthetics of a genre more than cultural expressions that reinforce faith. That’s not everyone’s model. But during the week we have liberty. On Sundays, the aesthetic must match the liturgical form and purpose. That generally favors tunes based on folk music rather than performance music, whether classical or rock.
LikeLike
Darryl, I appreciate what you’re saying about Christian media too often being a poorly made knockoff of whatever “secular” trend it’s trying to emulate. I just felt the need to point out that while most often I do find CCM to be of poor quality (and bad taste), I don’t think we should paint ANYTHING Christian-branded as derivative and substandard. I don’t listen to CCM radio for the same reason I avoid Christian bookstores – lots of kitschy, religious gimmickry that’s just a poor imitation of what someone else does better.
I remember hearing (I think) RC Sproul telling about a professor who held up two paintings. One was a poorly done portrayal of Jesus on the cross; the other was a quality painting of a man in a truck. The professor asked the students which one was the “Christian” painting. The answer was obvious, as the painting of Jesus was substandard religious propaganda, whereas the artist who portrayed the man in the truck glorified God by creating excellent art.
If you get the chance, I’d definitely check out Charlie Peacock (especially his strangelanguage and Kingdom Come albums), as well as the more recent and excellent work of Matthew Smith and Indelible Grace. Smith sometimes performs with Indelible Grace, and sometimes solo. Also I enjoy some of Derek Webb’s (of Cademon’s Call) solo stuff. I also like some of Daniel Amos’ music – definitely not your typical “God is my girlfriend” schlock. “Sins of the Fathers” is one of their best songs, from back in the 90s, and their last album has some really good songwriting, too.
LikeLike
Lance,
Wasn’t the painting of Jesus a violation of the second commandment? Are you saying that creating graven images is ok if it’s done well?
But also, you say that “the artist who portrayed the man in the truck glorified God by creating excellent art.” Does excellent work really glorify God? Isn’t it faith alone that glorifies God? Isn’t there a difference between doing good work and glorifying God? I worry that these sorts of conflations might be a variant of works-righteousness.
LikeLike
Zrim, that was my thought also: a painting of Christ is not necessarily Christian art.
For one thing, there’s the whole image issue.
For another, doesn’t motive matter here at all? (Specifically faith, as you say) A badly painted picture of Christ by a 2nd grader whose motive is faith — however imperfect — would glorify God. A badly painted picture of Christ done as a parody by a militant atheist isn’t Christian art, period.
(As you can see, I’m skeptical that art can be assessed entirely objectively.)
—
The notion of excellence glorifying God is not original to Lance, but comes out of issues DGH has raised. In this conversation, U2’s creating of “really good pop music” is said to glorify God. In another conversation long past, the excellence of really good fielding by a shortstop is said to glorify God.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, well, I’m not sure that any violation of the second can be said to glorify God. But in order to make the point that, just as God justifies by faith alone and thus that we glorify God by faith alone, I’d rather say that a poorly drawn picture of Bono by one who is of faith glorifies God, while the well drawn picture by one not of faith is simply a well drawn picture that doesn’t glorify God.
So, as U2 happy as I am, I cannot bring myself to say that the best rock band the world has ever known glorifies God by virtue of their good work. And I still want to know what is said of the mediocre fielding of the believer. Consider Psalm 147:10-11: “His pleasure is not in the strength of the horse, nor his delight in the legs of a man; the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love.” Maybe it’s a function of my mediocre interest in sports, but that sure sounds to me like God is glorified by faith and not by works.
LikeLike
Zrim, but what about Yes?
LikeLike
What about Yes? Can lyrics apparently drawn at random from a hat glorify God?
“Tell the moon-dog, tell the march hare, we have heaven”
“I’ll be the roundabout, the words will make you out and out, I spent the day your way…”
$5 to the man who can coherently explain it. But the composition is brilliant and carefully crafted. Go figure.
JRC
(P.S. Rick Wakeman claims the faith)
LikeLike
Jeff, but who older than 15 listens to pop for lyrics? (BTW, I believe the author of those words, Jon Anderson, discovered a similar mysticism in Christianity. That would make Yes the ur-Xian Rock Band — ugh.)
LikeLike
U2 beats Yes. But I still Just Say No to U2charists.
Jeff, $50K to him who can discern the meaning of “Elvis Presley and America,” a song which should alone make the case against U2charists.
LikeLike
Jeff, but who older than 15 listens to pop for lyrics?
*Raises hand, looks around nervously yet determinedly*
To my “fuzzy boundaries” mind, lyrics are a part of the music. The incoherence of the lyrics in Yes albums are a part of the aesthetic, just as the coherence and bite of lyrics in Police and Rush albums are a part of the aesthetic, just as the odd cynical randomness of They Might Be Giants album is a part of their aesthetic.
Now, if we’re evaluating theological content, then mystic Christianity is right out. But Anderson’s Christmas album “Three Ships” is still a fun listen.
—
It strikes me that a lot of ground could be gained if we could get the word out to the church: Music itself is not a means of grace. Religious music is not of itself a means of grace.
To the extent that songs teach the Word accurately, they approach being a means of grace; but we can reasonably draw a distinction between art with Christ motives or Jesus language — which is just art — and music that is intended to be doctrinally faithful, which might be appropriate for worship.
So for example: I enjoy and even glorify God listening to U2’s Scarlet (off October, IIRC). But I wouldn’t use it in a service because it doesn’t teach the Word. Good art, religious art, but not worship art.
If we understood that music is not a means of grace, I think a lot of the draw to edgy music would die down. That draw is primarily that “listening to the hard-core stuff makes me feel close to Jesus” — and then the conversation degenerates into an argument about whether emotion is a good or bad thing (ans.: neither.). By focusing on the medium as good or bad, we end up giving credence to the idea that the music itself is worship.
I say, cut it off at the knees. Refuse to label genres as inherently worshipful or non-worshipful, and insist instead that music of itself is not a means of grace.
—
Zrim: And I still want to know what is said of the mediocre fielding of the believer. Consider Psalm 147:10-11: “His pleasure is not in the strength of the horse, nor his delight in the legs of a man; the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love.†Maybe it’s a function of my mediocre interest in sports, but that sure sounds to me like God is glorified by faith and not by works.
Yes, I agree. I was pointing out that it was DGH, not Lance, that raised the issue of glorifying God through excellence.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot to check back in until today. In response to the art example, I wasn’t arguing that painting Jesus is necessarily a good idea. That’s a side issue I’m not going to even try to delve into since it wasn’t part of my original argument.
The point was that when humanity creates good art, that action glorifies God because it is a reflection of one of his communicable attributes in his creation. So for a Christian to look at a work of art that reflects something of God’s character in creation, I think, is to obey the command that whatever is pure, lovely, excellent, etc., is something we should think upon. Even an unbeliever can create a work of art that speaks truth about God and his creation.
I’d never argue that CCM is a tool for reaching the lost. The artists who consciously seek to be “evangelistic” and have altar calls at the end of their concerts tend to produce the most shallow content. Other artists – such as the aforementioned CP or Randy Stonehill – make music that is memorable and talks about life from a Christian perspective without necessarily being explicit about their faith in every song.
LikeLike
@Zrim – I’m definitely NOT attributing any soteriological value to art. I didn’t mean to imply that. I am only talking about God being glorified in his creation when human beings reflect God’s creative attributes.
LikeLike