The Scriptorium
My wife and I were having a conversation today sparked by a CD I bought for my 10-year-old daughter. The CD is by Barlowgirl, a Christian rock band (for those not in the target demographic). The lyrics to several of the songs are explicitly and obviously Christian, but a couple of others don't directly mention God or Christ--they are addressed to "you," and could be taken ambiguously by someone who didn't know they were Christian.
I got to thinking about the question of context. Do you have to know that it's a Christian band before you can tell if a song is Christian or not? Does that matter? Can music be "Christian" if it is not explicitly so? I think this has ramifications not only for popular Christian music, but also for so-called "crossover groups," as well as implications for our worship.
First I would like to draw a distinction. I think that we have two different discussions at hand when we talk about music used for worship as opposed to music that we just listen to whenever. If the focus of our worship is to be God, and giving him the honor and praise he is due, then whatever music we use as part of the service must be conducive to that end. Being a music lover myself and a musician, and having a ridiculously wide taste in music, I can say that there are certainly some styles of music that are not conductive to a worshipful attitude, one that focuses on God. Furthermore, even within styles of music that are conducive to worship, there are certain songs that do not promote worship because of the lyrics (bear in mind here that I am not arguing that we should only sing hymns--in point of fact, I would argue for a wider range of styles than many churches employ).
However, the issue may be different when we talk about the music we listen to in the car, around the house, etc. Most of the time we just want background music anyway, so does it matter how theologically sound or explicitly Christian the music is? If my daughters are going to listen to rock or pop music, I would rather them listen to music that lacks the vulgar language and sexual references of most popular music. This seems to be the approach of a lot of Christian radio stations--some have even taking to calling their music "positive hits" instead of "Christian hits." It seems as long as the music is clean and is made by someone who claims to be Christian, it's okay by us. I guess I can see the point here, but my logical side says, "Okay, if clean but vague music is better than vulgar pop music, wouldn't clearly Christian lyrics be better than clean but vague?" In other words, does Christian music have to put across an explicitly Christian message?
Of course, the other part of me refers to some of the great works of music that were composed by classical composers to the glory of God but which were instrumental. They clearly didn't have Christian lyrics--they didn't have lyrics at all. They were just there to celebrate the magnificent gift of music which God created to his glory. Of course, I would hesitate to label much of what's on the radio today as "art," but that's probably for another post. The point is, is it okay for a Christian artist to make music "just because," out of joy for the gift of music, even if it doesn't explicitly promote a Christian message? Can a Christian artist write a love song to his wife that doesn't preach?
I think the solution to the question is one of balance. I don't see a problem with the occasional theologically vacuous song, if it's still good music, and if the majority of the artist's work clearly testifies to the Christian faith. This establishes an overall message for the artist's work, within which context the artist may occasionally do something just for pure fun that we can enjoy. But I am always suspicious of a "Christian" group when all of its songs are ambiguous. They can thank God in the album credits all they want, but the message (or lack of) is conveyed by the music.
The fact is, as Christians we are exhorted to focus our minds on "whatever is excellent or praiseworthy" (Phil. 4:8), with the clear implication that such things should point us to Christ. Does the music we listen to point us to Christ? If so, then I think we can call it Christian. But there is a further implication. There is no doubt that music that is explicitly Christian, with lyrics that honor God or uplift the Christian in his faith, is beneficial to our spiritual walk. With the availability of this quality of music in virtually any style (yes, even rap), why settle for less most of the time? The challenge (to myself, first and foremost) is to question what you are filling your mind with. If someone were to take random samples of the music you hear throughout the day and play it in front of a group of fellow Christians, what would be the response? Would they be shocked, disgusted, amused, bored, or uplifted?
Gotta go--I have to check my ipod's playlists . . . :)
The Scriptorium
Well, I should be studying for a Systematic Theology midterm, but why do that when you can blog? I had lunch with a friend today and we were talking about some fellow students we know whose attitude toward seminary is one of seeing it as a roadblock, something to be endured and breezed through as quickly as possible so they can get to the "real" ministry. These are the students who complain about having to take language courses, who think theology is useless, who feel they don't really need music theory or a class on worship because they've been leading a praise band for 5 years, etc. If you're around people preparing for the ministry, you've probably run into this attitude. In fact, it's also reflected in the attitude of some of the older leaders in fundamental evangelical circles--I have friends who were told by their pastor, "Don't go to seminary--it will ruin you."
I'm no longer surprised by this attitude, but I am concerned about it. I am, of course, sympathetic to the criticism that you can't learn how to "do" ministry in a classroom. That's true, to a certain extent. Most of the really useful hands-on, practical skills you need you will probably learn in a trial by fire in your first position or two. As a teacher, I recognize this same problem in the field of education: you can't learn how to teach in a classroom. In fact, most of the worst teachers I have seen had degrees in education. The really good teachers learn to do what they do through experience and making a lot of mistakes. The problem with many education majors is they have learned some theoretical techniques and have interned in a class or two, but they have learned very little content. So we are presented with the dilemma of teachers who theoretically know "how" to teach but don't know anything about history, or math, or science, etc. (This explains why a few years back in one Florida county, 80% of the math teachers could not pass the high school exit exam math portion.)
This brings me back to my impatient fellow seminarians. Sure, you may be eager to skip the Hebrew and the theology and the church history in favor of getting out in the real world; but my question is, if you do skip those things, when you get into ministry, what will you teach? What gospel will you preach? If you have slept through your theology classes, how will you know how to respond to your congregation's questions about "Where was God on Sept. 11?" How will you address the Amish school shooting if you flunked the section on God's sovereignty? What will you tell your congregation about The Da Vinci Code if you scorned church history? How will you faithfully preach the whole counsel of God, "rightly dividing the word of truth," if you crammed your way through Greek and now don't even remember enough to use a quality commentary?
The questions are perhaps even more significant for those ministering outside the normal church setting. One acquaintance disdained our theology class because he is planning to go into "a gospel-focused recreational ministry" in a missional (non-church) setting. This man may be the first and only point of contact for lost people to hear the true words of life, and he doesn't feel it's important to be an expert on what those words are.
I feel certain that there is no shortage of professional ministers in our society. What I do think is in short supply is people who have diligently prepared themselves to be approved workers who can stand for the truth of God's word and carefully shepherd his people in these perilous times.
I close with a challenge to those who may feel this impatience toward their educational preparation for ministry. Do you believe God called you to ministry? If so, then unquestionably he demands your best in this area. Do you believe God has called you to seminary? If not, then why are you there? But if he has, do you not believe that he has called you to excel where he has placed you? Remember that the way you prepare for service is a spiritual sacrifice to God just as your ministry will be.
May God bless those He has called.
The Scriptorium
By the way, if you want to view the two sermons, they can both be seen here:
http://www.swbts.edu/events/chapel_schedule.cfm
My Scriptorium
I noticed an interesting contrast between a couple of our chapel speakers this month. On September 14, we had Dr. Frank Page, the newly elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaking here at Southwestern. He talked about the dangers of underestimating our enemy and contrasted the work of Satan with the work of the Savior in bringing life, and life more abundant. He then moved into a discussion of the issues facing the SBC in our day, and he noted that the question facing the SBC is one not only of inerrancy but also of relevancy. "The early church was met with persecution--the modern church is met with a yawn," was the quote that got my attention. I think he's right on some levels, though if you pay much attention to the news lately, you will see the persecution starting to ramp back up. Overall, though, the point seems valid: in a world with a plurality of competing worldviews, how do we as the church make it clear to our culture that we have a message for them?
It was with a sense of ironic amusement, then, that I listened to the very next chapel speaker, Dr. John Morgan, on Sept. 19. His message was entitled, "The Savior-Sensitive Church," intended as a contrast to the "Seeker-Sensitive" church. His point was that we are commanded in the Great Commission to make disciples, not grow a church. His points were excellent, drawing from 2 Timothy 4, Titus 1:9, and Galatians 1:10 to show that we need a call to holiness and that although the church must be real and meet people where they are, we cannot offer them answers without confronting sin.
So the question rolling around in my brain is, how do these two approaches intersect? This, I think, is especially important in light of the fact that the quest for "relevancy" in the church is so often connected to the church-growth movement, stressing the increase of numbers as the final measurement of success in doing God's work. I want to present the message of the gospel in a way that will get the lost to listen to it; but I'm more concerned about presenting it in a way that honors God.
In further posts I want to pursue several questions: What does it mean when we say we want to be "relevant"? Is there a biblical paradigm for how we do or do not adjust our church practice and message to the culture? How does the Great Commission get lived out in our modern culture--does it extend beyond "just" evangelism?
I welcome any thoughts.
Well, here goes the first post for my new blog. I have very wide-ranging interests, from religion to politics to music to science to education, but one focus of this blog will be theology and practice as it relates to the evangelical church (whatever that means anymore--good topic for an early post, I suppose). I'm a student at a major evangelical seminary, starting my second year in the M.Div program, and looking to wrestle with some of the weighty questions of faith that I continue to encounter. Hopefully I can get a conversation going on some of those issues here at "The Scriptorium."