Let's get a few things straight up front:
- I have as much interest in contemporary Christian music as I do in Japanese fiscal policy. I can't understand 75-90% of the words in anything not sung by "Weird Al" Yankovic. My current "favorite" secular CD is by a group called Bond that is almost entirely instrumental.
- No matter what anyone says, there is nothing about contemporary Christian music directly in the Bible. No "thou shalt not listen to Petra" or "though shalt not use a guitar".
- As a preterist I believe Satan is now bound and not doing anything.
This means that when someone asked me of late to comment on some material alleging that contemporary Christian music (CCM) was "satanic" (the source of the material was an extremist fundamentalist website, but it has been reprinted elsewhere), I had to shake my head. We obviously have CCM that is from bad sources (such as the heretical Philips, Craig and Dean, who ought to not be offered on any sound Christian radio station).
But satanic? No, I think that even if Satan was loose, he'd be too busy just now to be doing such things; and even if he were not, he'd probably come up with a better method anyway.
But let's reduce it to a more basic question even so: Is CCM immoral?
I will say this to start: Too often I think artists offer "pop" theology either because a) they don't know any better; b) they try too hard to make a rhyme at the expense of clarity.
The measure for this, for me, is that my dearly beloved wife (who enjoys some CCM) will tell me what a song is saying (since I can't understand it) and then pose some deeper theological question about what the singer means. Most of the time my answer is as above: What they did say has little or no meaning; it was just an effort to make a rhyme using the lingo.
Thus I can agree with certain "Biblical screens" set out by the material, at least in terms of whether something represents Christianity in a worthwhile way. It goes too far to say that music must pass all of these screens to merely be labeled "Christian".
Let's go over those "screens," in fact:
- its lyrics should be edifying, spiritually oriented, clear, conforming to Biblical truth, and point our focus to Jesus Christ
Curiously we are told that "most" CCM can be rejected on the basis of lyrics alone -- even when the lyrics are audibly clear, the predominance of false doctrine and/or the shallow view of the person and work of Jesus Christ is often appalling.
Perhaps it is. Perhaps also it is hard to achieve depth and at the same time be an able communicator. I wonder whether critics can compose a tune for us that explains the Trinity in terms of Jewish hypostatic Wisdom?
- The next issue is "score" and it is said, medical research clearly supports the contention that musical tones and rhythms in and of themselves (i.e., without lyrics) can cause physical and "emotional" reactions over which the listener may have little or no control. Since the score of contemporary Christian rock music, with its syncopation and slurring of notes, is virtually indistinguishable from its secular counterpart, one has to wonder if spirituality is being eroded and carnality is being propagated.
One does? Perhaps I am immune to such blandishments myself, as I find no such "reactions" engendered by rhythms. The advice given thereafter (One should always assess "Christian" music thusly: "Does it stir the flesh to 'boogie,' or the spirit to praise the Lord?") seems to beg the question as to whether a "boogie" is not an acceptable expression of worship (or maybe David was doing something before the Ark of the Lord that would have been acceptable to Lawrence Welk).
It would perhaps shock this individual to be told that, ie, the riposte used by Jesus against the Pharisees is "virtually indistinguishable" from that used by the Qumranites, or that used by "secular counterparts." Does one "have to wonder" about carnality in that case?
A key problem here is that the text of the Bible itself is quite "earthy" by certain contrived standards of "holiness" we have set for ourselves (check out the Song of Solomon if you don't think so). It is not AS earthy as it could be -- but what we seem to have here is not Biblical morality, but Victorian morality.
- This is the last and (even by its own admission) vaguest of the "screens": Character -- Our hymns, or the character of the music, is its most obscure component. The character of much of what is called "Christian" music may best be characterized as charismatic, irreverent, universalist, socialist utopian idealistic, superficial religiousness, neo-evangelical, expressionistic, ostentatious, or in a myriad of other contexts (e.g.; What is the character of the music at a so-called Christian rock concert when whatever message is presented is punctuated by screaming guitars, smoke bombs, and a general atmosphere of frivolity?) And because the character of the music is not always readily apparent to the listener, it can have the most insidious effect on believers; i.e., tolerance or acceptance of false doctrine can arise from constant subjection to deficient and improper attitudes in music.
If this is "not always readily apparent" then one wonders how the critic is an authority to make an evaluation. It is hard to say more without specifics (we will get some soon), though, so we'll leave that as is; but we might note that "frivolity" is in the eyes of the beholder here -- the word suggests someone with no appreciation at all for performance technique; for the establishment of atmosphere and the relevance of it in sending a message.
I would hazard that "smoke bombs" are not used just to give smoke-bomb manufacturers a way to make a living. As an amateur cartoonist I think as much of this comment as I do of someone who would say it is "frivolous" to use stylized panel borders.
It is in the specifics indeed that we must deal. Cited first is someone I must admit I have not heard of much: Larry Norman, allegedly "the father of Christian rock." It is claimed that Norman makes the incredulous statement that rock 'n' roll music originated in the Church hundreds of years ago, and that the devil stole it!!.
Norman is not actually quoted to this effect. But here are some more specific charges:
- Norman titles one of his songs, "Why Should the Devil Have All The Good Music," and in another song he refers to Christ (at His return for His Church) as an "Unidentified Flying Object."
I'm not clear on what the problem is supposed to be for the first one. If indeed I believed Satan were active today, it seems likely that one of his aims would be to corrupt what was good and use it for his purposes (for after all, evil is an adulteration of good, not its mirror opposite).
The second point does not seem particularly problematic in the context of the song -- following the dispensational eschatological picture, the message Norman offers comes from the view of the non-Christian who, seeing Jesus "coming on the clouds of heaven," has no idea what to make of the sight and will likely interpret what they see in other terms (as William Shatner wanted to make Jesus into a space alien). Next a song...
- ..in which it is said that Norman "pitifully trivializes the Gospel of the Resurrection" with these words:
They nailed Him to a cross;
They put Him in the ground;
Just goes to show you;
Can't keep a good Man down.
I am not sure how it is this "trivializes" the resurrection or the Gospel. The "can't keep a good man down" trope encapsulates a broader idea that good will not be defeated by evil. How is this "trivializing"? Because a trope is used?
The phrase is used as the title of a 1920s movie; was the use of the trope there "trivializing" to the subject matter (the movie was a silent drama)?
- The critic notes the historical origin of the "rock and roll" genre in terms of the name of the genre coming from "a ghetto term that black people used for pre-marital sex in the back seat of a car..." Then it is advised that we "contrast" this origin with that told us by the so-called "Christian" rock band Petra in the lyrics of one of their songs; i.e., that God was the source of rock 'n' roll!: God gave rock 'n' roll to you, Put it in the soul of everyone, etc.
No, we need not finish it -- the critic here is apparently seriously contending that Petra intended this song as some sort of objective history of the rock and roll music genre. The KJV is not the only thing some wayward Christians read with absurd overliteralism.
- The critic claims there appears to be a parallel between the attempt today to "Christianize" rock music and the "Christianization" of various pagan religious practices in fourth century Rome.
The problem here is that no documentation is offered for any such thing being done, officially, in 4th century Rome at all. The same "logic" has been used to say that the Jews "borrowed" Passover from pagans.
But in fact, what the critic refers to as "Christianization" of pagan customs, symbols, etc. was the standard practice of those victorious in ancient ideological warfare -- and it is perfectly Biblical. Thus for example, Christianity "took over" the images and language of Jewish Wisdom theology, in the New Testament. Christ is the ruler of the world; all is his.
And so then there is nothing awry about this process whatsoever (even if we allow for the rather bigoted implication that it may be wrong because it is somehow "Roman Catholic"). The true point that can be garnered here is that the change and revamping must be genuine; and what is truly in error must be sliced off (if it is indeed in error; it must not merely be presumed to be).
- A few accusations are then offered, lacking much in the way of substance, and with (for example) hints that the CCMers are in it for the money, and poor analogies:
May we similarly "Christianize" liquor by putting a Gospel message on the bottle label, and have Christians buy and promote it to reach drunks for Jesus?
Of course the question is merely begged that music forms are as incorrigible as (and as innately harmful as) liquor; at the same time, since at times in the past persons became literally hypnotized even by the use of traditional hymns, repeated far too often in a single session, the same argument could easily kill the use of hymns that the critic would otherwise approve.
The better analogy would be to the "Christianizing" of the concept of bars (which serve coffee rather than liquor). On the other hand, the idea that Luther used tavern songs is properly debunked by more reliable sources than the critic.
Although godly music can have an evangelistic purpose or result (e.g., Psa. 96:1-3; 108:3), it is not used primarily for this in Scripture. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Sing the gospel of Christ." It says to preach it! God can certainly use music to bring somebody to Christ, but there has to be a presentation of the gospel somewhere along the line. Our music is primarily an expression of a Spirit-filled life, not really intended for the world's consumption. We seem to want so much to sing our songs to the world that we put them in the world's vernacular and think it's going to be evangelistic.
Of course if we take "preach" to that level of literalism, it means we can't write letters that are evangelistic; we have to evangelize in person. The admission that God CAN use music to bring a person to Christ undermines the critic's entire argument against CCM merely as a genre (not against specific songs, of course). The accusation of merely switching vernacular is perhaps true of specific songs (though none yet given as examples qualify). But it speaks for itself that in the end, this sort of argument ends up what is being used:
So even if one could find nothing wrong with the lyrics, the score, the character, and/or the effect of "Christian" rock music, one would still have to question why the modern day, self-proclaimed musical evangelists/entertainers persist in using their music in endeavors where there is no clear Biblical precedent; i.e., although mentioned over 800 times in Scripture, music is never used for entertainment or for direct evangelism or for any end within itself. Music in the Bible is used primarily in praise and in worship, either to God (e.g., I Chron. 16:9,23; II Chron. 29:30; Psa. 9:11; 30:4; 33:2,3; 47:6; 135:3; etc.) or to Satan (e.g., Dan. 3:4,5,7,10,15; Exo. 32:17,18).
Then, it seems we must also stop reading all books other than a select few; for these is "no clear Biblical precedent" for writing Christian fiction (whether pedantic literature like Left Behind or quality material like that made by C. S. Lewis), and also, no more works of apologetics, since although Scripture is written itself, writings other than Scripture are "never used for entertainment or for direct evangelism or for any end within itself."
The error here is the same that is fallen into by the Church of Christ in their effort to rid the church of musical instruments -- as I said in sum, applies also here:
I find it significant that another CoC site finds it necessary to accompany this sort of argument with a closing threat: "Since we cannot be absolutely certain that God finds the use of musical instruments an appropriate form of worship, then it seems quite foolish to risk His wrath by adding something which He did not clearly authorize us to do during collective worship." Well, as far as I can see, altar calls, weekly collections, two services on Sunday and one on Wednesday, business meetings, and other standbys aren't clearly authorized either, but as far as I can see as well the CoC isn't throwing those out the window.
The modern church, even the CoC, is a product of its time, and Paul and others would not recognize much of it. However, that it far from important, since the early church was also very much a product of its time; what is important is that they would recognize the members of the body of Christ. "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's." (2 Cor. 7)
In fairness, I ought to note that our critic in view is one such who would probably disavow such things as altar calls, etc. -- his own website is full of condemnations for not only properly-condemned persons, but also condemns persons like Bill Bright, Billy Graham, and J. I. Packer. The result -- isolationism -- also speaks for itself.
- Then we have this:
Jesus said that when He was lifted up, He would draw all men to Himself. Why then would the Holy Spirit need help today from the world's music in drawing people to Christ? Why do the "musical soul-winners" think they can attract people for God by using the world's standards and the world's music, when the net effect of the music is to basically stir the flesh and the emotions rather than stir a love for God?
So why then would the Spirit need men like Peter and Paul to even preach? And why indeed would Paul have needed "help" from pagan poets he quoted before the Areopagus? Why do the "poet-quoting soul-winners think they can attract people for God by using the world's standards and the world's poems, when the net effect of the poetry is to basically attract people to pagan philosophy"?
One wonders how our critic would cope with the news that some people have used the Song of Solomon for the sake of erotic fantasizing. There is nothing more here than an attempt to blame objects for that which persons are truly resposible. On the other hand, at least "backwards masking" is dismissed not as unreal, but as irrelevant.
A case is made for the idea that "music can be used for evil" -- which no one doubts; but the same can be said for writing of books, so does this mean we should stop reading the Bible? The fallacy here is again the classic one of blaming the vehicle rather than the driver who drives it, and also adds his own modifications to the vehicle to make it run faster or louder.
- One of our critics' main sources for data on how music affects people is David Tame's The Secret Power of Music. This in itself indicates a serious lack of discernment, given that his writings also include such gems as Real Fairies (which is described as saying, This book relates the experiences of many people, some famous, some clairvoyant, some everyday, who have met members of the fairy kingdom.) and another book claiming to find esoteric messages in Beethoven's works. But is Tame right that music can be a negative influence on people?
Perhaps so. So the same could be said of different kinds of books. What of it? I have a form of "seasonal disorder" which means that I dislike the heat and bright light and long days of summer. It makes me antsy and causes me to lose my appetite. So does this mean sunshine is bad? Of course not. It is bad for me.
If music (even rock music) is bad for you, drop it. What our critic fails to show is that the category of CCM falls under some universal proscription "against". Such "evidence" as is presented is suspicious for its record; for example:
The plant research findings are solidly in the traditionalist camp: not only did rock music stunt the growth of a wide variety of plants, but if played long enough, the plants actually died. And even more startling were the findings of Dr. T.C. Singh, head of the Botany Department at Annamalia University, India. His experiments demonstrated that not only did certain forms of music and certain musical instruments (specifically, classical music and the violin) cause plants to grow at twice their normal speed, but that later generations of the seeds of musically stimulated plants carried on the improved traits of greater size, more leaves, etc.! Presumably, the same effect can result in the negative sense, from bad music. The possible significance of Dr. Singh's findings to human life is evident, and should be at least a little disconcerting to rock music fans (pp. 141-145).
Should it be? Not if we know what it actually said. Others who use Singh's study report some additonal data which is of interest. It seems that gardeners have quite an interest in his work and here is what one such source says:
Plants respond to sound, too. In the early 50s, Dr. T.C. Singh, head of the department of botany at Annamalai University, found that frequencies between 100 and 600 cycles per second produced strong beneficial effects in a large number of plants, including common asters, petunias, cosmos, onions, radishes, and sweet potatoes.
And another such site says:
Knowing that plant protoplasm streaming begins to speed up shortly after sunrise, Singh placed an electrically-operated tuning fork six feet away from the plant and broadcast the note for a half hour prior to 6 a.m. What he noticed was that the sound apparently stimulated the protoplasm to stream at speeds which normally would not occur until much later in the day.
Singh’s next step was to ask a violinist to play while standing near the plants. At a certain pitch, the protoplasm streaming accelerated. One thing led to the next, until Dr. Singh was playing South Indian music to mimosas and found that after two weeks the number of stomata on the plant leaves had increased by 66%! Singh also soon discovered that the music apparently stimulated above average growth and rates of growth in balsam plants. It wasn’t long before he was playing music to all kinds of plants, including petunias, lilies, aster, onions, radishes, and sweet potatoes, to name a few. The music was played one-half hour per day and, according to Tompkins and Bird, was "scaled at a high pitch, with frequencies between one hundred and six hundred cycles per second." Singh’s published conclusion was that he had "proven beyond any shadow of doubt that harmonic sound waves affect the growth, flowering, fruiting, and seed-yields of plants."
What this boils down to is that Singh's study had little if anything to do with rock music -- it had to do with ANY sound performed within certain cycle-levels. No doubt it is possible that some levels of music may have an ill effect on people. No doubt also the same can be said of certain mechanical noises, but I doubt if the critic is going to either move for a ban on such machines, or else say that CCM is fine as long as musicians avoid those specific tones and rhythms that cause a problem, and fits in with "natural body rhythms".
The critic makes use of alleged medical research as well, though Tame is again the source, which leads to obvious questions about reliability. For example:
Dr. David Nobel, another medical doctor and an authority on music, has done extensive research on the value of music rhythms [score] corresponding to body rhythms. He writes that, "None of these qualities accrue to the rock sound. Instead, rock contains harmonic dissonance and melodic discord while it accents rhythm with a big beat. In fact, the anapestic beat [two short beats, a long beat, then a pause] used by many rock musicians actually is the exact opposite of our heart and arterial rhythms [thereby causing an immediate loss of body strength]."
As another addresser of these views has pointed out, this is exactly the opposite of the argument that rock incites sexuality, which is something these critics say. But it is more curious that other than this reference, and misspelled references to Dr. David Noebel (of Summit Ministries), there is no evidence at all of this "Dr. David Nobel" doing anything, so far as I have found.
The critic closes with another series of brief points which, while offering some gems (such as, not making "how we feel" a criteria for whether music is good -- which sort of contradicts the points above about how bad it is supposed to make us feel on the other hand), are also mixed with a few threats of hellfire for those who disagree, and closes with questions from a "booklet" by someone of unknown authority, Sears:
Gordon Sears, in his booklet, Is Today's Christian Music "Sacred"?, asks six questions of those who think that CCM is indeed acceptable to God: If the new style and sound of music is of God then:
(1) Why is it causing so much confusion and division among Christians?;
Is it? I see no confusion at all over it, and no division either, except among types such as this critic. One might add that the same could be said over the doctrine of the Trinity.
(2) Why is it not received by all fundamental Bible-believing churches?;
I am inclined to reply that restricting to the category of "fundamental Bible-believing churches" rather skews the results (not to mention that it begs the question as well that such churches are the sole and final arbiters).
(3) Why is it readily accepted by the non-Christian world? The ungodly never accepted the old Christian hymns;
They don't? Funny, because the movie Minority Report, for example, made use of the old song, Jesu: Joy of Man's Desiring. By the way, why is Christian charity so readily accepted by the non-Christian world? And when was the last time you heard Internet Infidels unite in saying that they found "Breakfast" by the Newsboys to be an "acceptable" tune?
(4) Why is it that Bible-denying universities and popular secular TV entertainment shows invite well-known Christian artists to give concerts with CCM? This never happened with the great spiritual hymns;
No examples are given of which universities and secular TV shows do this (much less is it shown that this is any sort of norm), so it is hard to comment, but I have to wonder if a) it is Christian groups on university grounds that offer such invitations; b) whether authors of "great spiritual hymns" would be invited to shows if they sang, "Happy Birthday". In other words, maybe it is the subject of the songs and not the genre that makes for the invitation?
(5) Why are there hundreds of churches with godly pastors across America that strictly reject it and forbid it in their services?;
As with (2) this simply begs a question of who is a rightful arbiter (not to mention that it makes no effort to count how many "godly" pastors hold the opposite view).
(6) Why does it have such a strong effect upon the physical body? (As shown earlier, music does have a strong physical effect -- to ignore this would be negligent.)
As noted above, the issue is a particular range of frequencies, not a genre of music. I wonder again if these fellows would lose their objection if the frequencies were outside the range in question.
In the end, the critic is forced to resort to guidelines that are hardly exclusive of CCM ("The text and music should not be cheap or tawdry.") or else have more to do with subjectiveness and weakness of character ("It will be free of mental association with worldly musical styles and evidence a holy consecrated character (Rom. 12:2; I Jn. 2:15).") than with anything specific or objective -- which is no doubt why our critic offers so little in the way of specifics.
In the end, the critic chases himself in a circle, setting his own guidelines and then force-fitting Scripture into validating those guidelines. As a tone-deaf listener who doesn't care about CCM in the first place, I think I can objectively say that beyond the warnings that could be applied as well to any form or art of communication, critics of CCM I have seen are far not engaged in serious exegesis or understanding.
This section we begin profiling the theological content of popular Christian music and commenting on it in terms of issues of concern to apologetics. We begin with a look at a sampling of lyrics from the popular group Mercy Me. I chose them first because they offer what I frankly consider to be the worst song in popular Christian music today in terms of theological content, and it is with this song that I also begin:
I can only imagine
What it will be like
When I walk
By your side
I can only imagine
What my eyes will see
When your face
Is before me
Surrounded by Your glory, what will my heart feel
Will I dance for you Jesus or in awe of you be still
Will I stand in your presence or to my knees will I fall
Will I sing hallelujah, will I be able to speak at all
The emphasis here is heavily on personal experience – so much so that I once thought to rewrite the repeated main line as, “I can only think of what I’ll do.” But of course, it’s not really that unusual: it fits in with what is already going on in so many churches now that place a heavy emphasis on “praise and worship” as some sort of revitalizing experience – to a goodly extent, a sort of drugless high. The sense transmitted is that of eternity as one long worship service of this sort – as is further offered, “I can only imagine, When all I will do, Is forever, forever worship you.” The options listed – feelings of the heart, dancing, being still and in awe, and so on – offer no hint of eternal life as one of continued responsibilities. Messages like these do little to encourage a sense of the Christian life as that of a disciple and servant.
Not surprisingly, Mercy Me also offers the expected message that God is a personal buddy:
My imagination
Gets me all the time
No matter where I look You're all I'm seeing
You're my fascination
The very reason why
The reason why I'll never stop believing
There is a disturbing turn to this message: It fits all too well into the notion the Christian worships their God unthinkingly, choosing to believe not because the truth or evidence demands it, but because they have chosen by fiat to see nothing else. Worse yet:
And I'm so amazed that I
Am always on Your mind
I believe that You're always here with me
You're everywhere but still within my reach
Cause how could You save the day
If You're a million miles away
The contrast is stark: My own studies have reached the conclusion that God is best understood in terms of a patron whose involvement is far from intimate. Mercy Me’s deity is, on the contrary, a personal buddy, “always here with me” and out to “save the day” (as if this were indeed God’s purpose and role!). This is a theology impossible to reconcile with even the most poorly formulated assertion of the problem of evil, and it sends the same mixed message not only to Christian suffering in their own way, but to the world at large.
Next, we have a song which reads more like a self-esteem pep talk than anything which ought to be presented by a Christian music group:
Days will come when you don't have the strength
And all you hear is you're not worth anything
Wondering if you ever could be loved
And if they truly saw your heart
They'd see so much
You're beautiful, You're beautiful
You are made for so much more than all of this
You're beautiful, You're beautiful
You are treasured, you are sacred, you are His
You're beautiful
This is the sort of thing I’d expect to emerge, though, in an era where our leading teachers are persons like Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer – whose sermons are also more like pep talks than meat to be eaten by serious disciples.
Is there anything that could be called theology in any of this? One song offers the sadly misplaced conception of faith so common today:
I was taught to be practical in everything I do
Holding on to what is tangible, and then came You
That's when I found myself so far away, from everything I knew
I took a leap of faith
You're everything I cannot see
You're everything I cannot say
I know it all seems so illogical
But that's okay
What's so hard to understand
What I cannot comprehend
Is that You love me the way I am
The message is one that rejects evidence and reason – for what need is there of such things when we “feel the love”?
Other songs do offer some semblance of serious theology; but this appears to be incidental to a larger theme of using such theology as a vehicle for “praise” – as in this case:
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.
You reign
glory in the highest You reign
every knee will bow
and every tongue proclaim
that Jesus reigns.
Biblical authors using the same imagery had in mind honoring a deserving and powerful king; but Mercy Me has reduced this to a vehicle for emotional and therapeutic highs – as indeed so much modern “praise and worship” has done.
The most positive lyrics I could find in my selection were these:
And I know that I can find You here
'Cause You promised me You'll always be there
Times like these, it's hard to see
But somehow I have a peace, You're near
And I pray that You will use my life
In whatever way Your name is glorified
Even if surrendering
Means leaving everything behind
My life has never been this clear
Now I know the reason why I'm here
You never know why You're alive
Until you know what you would die for
I would die for You
These sentiments are elevated and correct. Yet they ring hollow coming from the mouth of modern American who has likely known little in the way of serious suffering, much less a threat of martyrdom. I am not saying that the sentiments are insincere – only that I very much doubt the artist has a comprehensive picture of exactly what it is they are pledging.
Finally, though it may not seem so at first, consider the anti-reason sentiments implicit in this selection:
I'm finding myself at a loss for words
And the funny thing is it's okay
The last thing I need is to be heard
But to hear what You would say
Word of God speak
Would You pour down like rain
Washing my eyes to see
Your majesty
To be still and know
That You're in this place
Please let me stay and rest
In Your holiness
Word of God speak
I'm finding myself in the midst of You
Beyond the music, beyond the noise
All that I need is to be with You
And in the quiet hear Your voice
So also would a Mormon say. And while I am not expecting instructions for discernment in a song (! – for one thing, what rhymes with “discernment”?) the theme is one we have seen here abundantly from today’s shallow teachers, to the effect that the voice of God is a public resource for Christians to listen to, and all you have to do is “be still” – which is much the same as saying, in the modern parlance, “don’t think it through.”
If the reader thinks that this evaluation has been harsh, please consider what is at stake: The lyrics we see here are emitted daily on our Christian radio stations and are called upon for inspiration by the church at large. If what we are feeding ourselves for inspiration is a polluted stream, then it will inevitably reflect the way we act and believe as well.
Frankly, lyrics like these make me glad that I do hear, “got my eyeballs stuck to my plate.”
Next, I have purposely chosen the group Casting Crowns (CC) -- one I have been told by many listeners is perhaps the most theologically solid of the CMC groups out there. What remained to be seen is whether that was in any way significant, or if it meant simply something like, "Chuck got the highest grade in class...he got a D. Everyone else got an F."
The good news: It doesn't mean that. CC does a fairly good job, as good as can be expected given the amount of time and the creative restrictions they have. Much of their orientation is set towards pricking the conscience of the church, as in this popular song:
She is running
A hundred miles an hour in the wrong direction
She is trying
But the canyon's ever widening
In the depths of her cold heart
So she sets out on another misadventure just to find
She's another two years older
And she's three more steps behind
Does anybody hear her? Can anybody see?
Or does anybody even know she's going down today
Under the shadow of our steeple
With all the lost and lonely people
Searching for the hope that's tucked away in you and me
Does anybody hear her? Can anybody see?
Although I'm somewhat nonplussed by the effort to relate the Gospel to modern neuroses of loneliness, as is done here, it remains that this is a powerful and proper indictment of the irresponsibility of the ekklesia at large to act as salt and light. Even I relate to warnings against "lofty glances from lofty people" -- for apologists, in their own way, wear a "scarlet letter" in the eyes of many modern Christians. (it's not a sin, as what the song alludes to is, but it does make the "lofty glances" all the more ironic).
The theme of meeting modern psychological needs is repeated here as well:
The love of her life is drifting away
They're losing the fight for another day
The life that she's known is falling apart
A fatherless home, a child's broken heart
You're holding her hand, you're straining for words
You trying to make sense of it all
She's desperate for hope, darkness clouding her view
She's looking to you
Just love her like Jesus, carry her to Him
His yoke is easy, His burden is light
You don't need the answers to all of life's questions
Just know that He loves her and stay by her side
And love her like Jesus, love her like Jesus
First century Christians, as agonistic peoples, would probably be astounded to learn that we had turned Jesus into a personal psychologist this way. Still and all, CC does get this much right, again: The salt and light is missing and we're controlling both the shaker and the switch. And although I wouldn't recommend using Jesus in such a cavalier way, our general mission of support does fall within the parameters of comfort and counsel, even for what would be termed a modern emotional problem.
The call to action theme can be seen yet again here:
What if the armies of the Lord
Picked up and dusted off their swords
Vowed to set the captives free
And not let Satan have one more?
What if the church, for Heaven's sake
Finally stepped up to the plate
Took a stand upon God's promise
And stormed Hell's rusted gates?
...
And what would happen if we prayed
For those raised up to lead the way?
Then maybe kids in school could pray
And unborn children see light of day
What if the life that we pursue
Came from a hunger for the truth?
What if the family turned to Jesus
Stopped asking Oprah what to do?
Ouch. Had to love that last line! I could nitpick about the dispensational tinge, of course, but other than that, these are magnificent statements of the need for us to recognize valid and proper authority -- and take action on it. The rest of the song I find a little questionable in terms of how it envisions prayer:
He said that He would hear
His promise has been made
He'd answer loud and clear, yeah
If only we would pray
But, it's not made clear what exactly is meant by an "answer," so I can't object. The lyrics further on do imply that an "answer" implies also action on our part, though, so there's probably no "magic wand" view of prayer here.
In contrast, here's one that takes Jesus a little too close for comfort:
Living on my own, thinking of myself
Castles in the sand, temporary wealth
Now the walls are falling down
Now the storms are closing in
And here I am again
Jesus, hold me now
I need to feel You in this place
To know You're by my side
And hear Your voice tonight
We've written before of this too-intimate language, when used by writers like Stanley and Lucado, so there's no need to discuss it further here. In contrast, here's a set of lyrics that are unusually meaty in the theology department, for CCM:
Looking out from his throne
Father of light and of men
Chose to make himself known
And show us the way back to Him
Speaking wisdom and truth
Into the hearts of peasants and kings
He began to unveil
The word that would change the course of all things
With eyes wide open all who'd see
The word is alive
And it cuts like the sword through the darkness
With a message of life to the hopeless and the frail
Breathing life into all who believe
Simple strokes on a page
Eternities, secrets revealed
Carried on from age to age
It speaks truth to us even still
I think if John had written his prologue to music, this probably would have been something like what it would have ended up as. And then we have this from the same song, which sounds a bit like chapter 1 of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict:
The Bible was inscribed over a period of 2000 years
In times of war and in days of peace
By kings, physicians, tax collectors, farmers
Fishermen, singers and shepherds
The marvel is that a library so perfectly cohesive
Could have been produced by such a diverse crowd
Over a period of time which staggers the imagination
Jesus is its grand subject, our good is designed
And the glory of God is its end
Basic though it is, it's hard not to be pleased by the effort to add a dash of historical confirmation when most groups are emphasizing nothing but feeling.
In light of CC's calls for action, it's somewhat more forgiveable to see them also going the way of Mercy Me with the praise aspects in another song:
Oh God, You are my God
And earnestly I seek You
O how I long for You
In this dry and weary land
I’ve seen You in the sanctuary
And I beheld Your glory
So I can think of only one thing I can do
I lift my hands
I lift my hands and I will praise You all my days
I lift my voice
I lift my voice to You in this simple song of praise
I lift my eyes
So I will think of You through the watches of the night
Hear the voices ring as Your children sing
In the shadow of Your wings
So in the end, CC gets a B minus. Even so, that they do get a grade that high doesn't say much for the content of modern Christian music as a whole.
Our next music group is a controversial one, though we will only touch on the controvery long enough to see to what extent, if any, it touches on music. Philips, Craig and Dean (PCD) is known to be composed of ministers from ther Oneness Pentacostal movement. Some have noted their reticence on this subject, and others have questioned the propriety of using their music. That is not an issue we will settle here, but we will be checking to see if "Oneness" theology makes it into their lyrics.
One song it arguably does appear in -- obliquely -- is this one:
You are not a god
Created by human hands
You are not a god
Dependant on any mortal man
You are not a god
In need of anything we can give
By Your plan, that's just the way it is
You are God alone
From before time began
You were on Your throne
You are God alone
There's a certain ambiguity in "you are God alone" that under the circumstances warrants a question: Is this line meant in a "Oneness" sense? Of course, mainstream Trinitarianism can accept tht statement and fill it with its own theology, and has done so. But it can be little unnerving to realize that PCD means something else by it -- akin to being fond of a love song, and having it all ruined when you are told the man singing it is talking to his horse.
Apart from that, the sing does contain some surprisingly deep creation theology, but it goes downhill from there and turns into a musical security blanket of the sort more frequently found in Christian music:
And right now
In the good times and bad
You are on Your throne
You are God alone
Your the only God
Whose power none can contend
Your the only God
Whose name and praise will never end
Your the only God
Whose worthy of everything we can give
You are God
And that's just the way it is
Unchangeable
Unshakable
Unstoppable
That's what You are
These include accurate descriptions of the attributes of God, but the uneasy sense of this is that they are listed more for personal reassurance ("my Dad is big and strong") than out of any desire to honor God. I could be wrong, but other songs tend to indicate not, such as this one:
Father I see that you are drawing a line in the sand
And I want to be standing on your side, holding your hand
So let your kingdom come, let it live in me
This is my prayer, this is my plea
Hand holding? With God? It is but one indignity in song that is otherwise acceptable (even if devoid of signifying content). In this case, though, the indignity is at a fever pitch:
I don't know how to say exactly how I feel
And I can't begin to tell you what your love has meant
I'm lost for words
Is there a way to show the passion in my heart
Can I express how truly great I think you are
My dearest friend
Lord, this is my desire
To pour my love on You
Like oil upon your feet
Like wine for you to drink
Like water from my heart
I pour my love on you
If praise is like perfume
I'll lavish mine on you
Till every drop is gone
I'll pour my love on you
This picture of God -- a combination of personal psychological counselor and BFF -- is something we've addressed as inappropriate more than enough times little else need be said.
On the other hand, this represents something I have not seen yet:
I feel quite sure if I did my best
I could maybe impress you
With tender words and a harmony
A clever rhyme or two
But if all I've done in the time we've shared
Is turn your eyes on me
Then I've failed at what I've been called to do
There's someone else I want you to see
Will you love Jesus more
When we go our different ways
When this moment is a memory
Will you remember His face
Will you look back and realize
You sensed His love more than you did before
I'd pray for nothing less
Than for you to love Jesus more
I'd like to keep these memories
In frames of gold and silver
And reminisce a year from now
About the smiles we've shared
But above all else I hope you will come
To know the Father's love
When you see the Lord face to face
You'll hear Him say "well done"
It is not clear what the nature of the relationship between the two persons in this song is, and perhaps it makes no difference. However, it is the first time I have seen a song posed as dialogue between two persons, in which it is made explicit that the "relationship" between a person and Jesus is markedly undifferentiated from any between person and person. So the indignity is not new; but the way of explaining it is.
PCD is a group I know well (better than I'd like) because they seem to have become a favorite of music ministers. Perhaps this is because the "praise chorus" is one of their specialties, and it would be good to close with commentary on that aspect of performance, with examples such as:
Who am I that You are mindful of me?
That you hear me
When I call
Is it true that You are thinking of me?
How You love me
It's amazing
(Repeat)
I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
He calls me friend
Who am I that You are mindful of me?
That you hear me
When I call, yeah
Is it true that You are thinking of me?
How You love me
It's amazing, so amazing, it's amazing
And:
Open the eyes of my heart, Lord
Open the eyes of my heart
I want to see You
I want to see You
Open the eyes of my heart, Lord
Open the eyes of my heart
I want to see You
I want to see You
To see You high and lifted up
Shining in the light of Your glory
As we sing holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
The unique convenience of the praise chorus (if I may be facetious) is that it enables performers to fill three minutes of time with 30 seconds' worth of words. Now the lack of taxing on creativity if bad enough, but it is a matter of psychological truth that the effect of repetition like this is to dull the senses and (if it gets far enough) alter one's state of consciousness. Comparison has been made before between such choruses and the repeating of mantras in Eastern faiths.
To conclude this evaluation: While I didn't find much in the way of Oneness theology in PCD's material, I did find much the same unfortunate sentimentalism we have seen elsewhere. It'd hard to say which would have been worse to find at this stage.
Next, we'll take a step back in time to one of the more classic bands, Petra. I once read this group described as a "meat and potatoes" band, which might suggest that we'll see a lot less fluff than we do in many of the groups we have reviewed so far. That does seem indeed to be the case.
Consider first this set of lyrics:
This thirsting within my soul
Won't cease till I've been made whole
To know You, to walk with You
To please You in all I do
You uphold the righteous and Your faithfulness shall endure
Adonai, Master of the earth and sky
You alone are worthy, Adonai
Adonai, let creation testify
Let Your majesty be magnified in me
Adonai you are an endless mystery
Unchanging consuming fire
Lift me up from mud and mire
Set my feet on Your rock, let me dwell in Your righteousness
When the storms surround me, speak the word and they will be still
And this thirst and hunger is a longing only You can fill
Although there are certainly touches of what we would come to see as an over-focus on a too-personal relationship, the balance of these lyrics is weighted overwhelmingly towards the attributes and majesty of God, and the references to our own experience, even so, are the minimum necessary to express the inevitable I-thou aspect of interaction with God. In short, there is a transcendence here that has been missing from so many of the groups we have previously surveyed.
And where before have we seen doctrinal matters so clearly laid out, than with words like these?
When our labor all retire
there will be a trial by fire
Will your treasure pass the test
Or will it burn up with the rest
You may build upon a sure foundation
With your building in delapidation
When it all comes down to rubble
Will it be wood hay and stubble
Or precious stones, gold and silver--
Are you really sure
And we all will stand at the Bema Seat
All will be revealed--it will be complete
Will there be reward in the fiery heat
When we see our lives at the Bema Seat
Every talent will be surely counted
Every word will have to be accounted
Not a story will be left untold
We will stand and watch the truth unfold
Every score--will be evened--nothing to defend
Every building will be shaken
Every motive will be tried
He'll give reward to the faithful
Will you recieve or be denied
Apart from Casting Crowns, we have seen no group put such a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility -- but not even CC laid the weight this heavily upon the listener, and placed their focus in the main on the experience of the one who suffered, as opposed to the process of judgment. Arguably one might say that there was a balance that needed to be struck between both, and that this is a case of a pendulum swung too far, reactionarily, in the wrong direction.
Petra was, as I recall, not a group that considered themselves beneath a little humor. To this day, "Breakfast" by the Newsboys remains one of my favorite songs, and this one by Petra seems to have been of the same type:
Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
We're beginnin' to think you're touched
We hear ya got religion
Ya ain't been 'round to see us much
Ya threw away your corncob pipe
And your jug of moonshine brew
And we hear ya ain't been doin'
All those things you used to do
Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
You're shavin' ev'ry day
You ain't been chasin' women
And you kissed your wife today
You went to church last Sunday
And you shook the preacher's hand
And they say that you been talkin'
'Bout a home beyond this land
Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
Ya never cuss no more
We hear you ain't been feudin'
You hung your rifle by the door
Ya take a bath each Sunday
If ya need it or not
And ya go to work on Monday
Even when it's hot
Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
We're beginnin' to think you're touched
We hear ya got religion
Ya ain't been 'round to see us much
But ya know we've all been wonderin'
If what ya got just might be real
And all the while we're laughin'
Is it really God, Is it really God
Is it really God you feel?
I must confess to have never heard this one before, on Christian radio or anywhere else! But we probably should have. The emphasis on personal testimony, which I normally consider out of place, likely has its best expression in settings like these where it becomes a sort of self-effacing mechanism (as opposed to a sort of "tell all scandal" format).
Even more amazingly, Petra offered a similar song based on an incident in the life of St. Augustine:
...one night I heard a knock at the door
The boys were really painting the town
I was just another bored teenage boy
Kickin' up and actin' the clown... Yeah
One dare led to another dare
Then things were getting out of control
We hopped the fence and we stole the pears
And I threw away a part of my soul
Yes, I threw away a part of my soul (now it's)
Haunting me how I stole those pears
'Cause I loved the wrong
Even though I knew a better way
Not for hunger or poverty
It is hard to imagine some of our current groups (aside from CC) making use of what is a relatively obscure story like this one; but there is perhaps a connection to be made here between depth of theological knowledge and awareness and "meatiness" of lyrics. Those who make themselves earnest disciples will bear fruit (not pears!) in accord with that.
Petra was also not afraid to be critical of the brethren for misplaced priorities:
Everybody look there's a new bandwagon in town
Hop on board and let the wind carry you around
Seems like there's not enough to keep us busy till the Lord comes back
Don Quixote's gotta have another windmill to attack
Another Witch Hunt looking for evil wherever we can find it
Off on a tangent, hope the Lord won't mind it
Another Witch Hunt, takin' a break from all our gospel labor
On a crusade but we forgot our saber
There's a new way to spend all our energies
We're up in arms instead of down on our knees
Walkin' over dollars trying to find another dime
Before we sleep tonight we've got miles to go
No one is safe, no stones left unturned
And we won't stop until somebody gets burned
Bro Bro Bro Bro Bro Bro Brothers
My one reservation is that I have no idea where Petra would draw the line between a "witch hunt" and a genuine doctrinal dispute worthy of attention. I can only say based on their lyrics that I tend to think they'd draw a line that was a responsible one.
Did I find anything that looked too familiar, like so much of today's music? This came closest to crossing the line:
Why should the Father bother to call us His children?,
Why should the Spirit hear it when we pray?,
Why should the Father bother to be concerned with all our needs?
It's all Because of what the Son has done.
Once we were lost out on the Ocean with no direction or devotion,
tossed about by every wind & wave , Now we are in the world not of it,
and we can surely rise above it, Because the Lord has risen from the grave
And we cry "Abba Father", "Abba Father" ,"Abba Father" , "Abba Father"
We cry "Abba Father", "Abba Father", "Abba Father" , "Abba Father",
Once we were strangers from the Promise, We were doubters worse than
Thomas,
Till the Spirit opened up our eyes, Now he has offered us Adoption &
we have taken up the option, To be His family Eternally.
It's all Because of what the Son has done.
It came closest....but was ambiguous enough to not cross the line into the problematic "buddy God" treatment. In that regard I found Petra to be entirely sound and never lacking in reverence.
For our next few entries in this series, we'll continue to look at older groups, and perhaps there will be some sort of identifiable trend in which we find that the overfamiliarity of the most recent Christian music can be seen as a relatively recent aberration. It's hard not to wax nostalgic here -- I still recall such favorites as Petra, Stryper, and David Meece, and they now seem so reverent compared to what we have today.
That I describe Stryper as reverent in comparative terms might speak enough for itself!
The band Stryper, in my high school days, was controversial just on the basis that it seemed impossible that there should be anything as oxymoronic as a "Christian heavy metal" band. Today, as it happens, they are enjoying a revival, so our survey becomes just as relevant now as then, as we ask: How much "meat" is there, theologically, in what they present? This will be a rather objective study for me -- since even in the 80s, as now, I was badly tone deaf and hardly understood most of the words in songs like these!
We'll start with selections from the 1980s, and this one, which is apparently programmatic of Stryper's mission:
The hair is long and the screams are loud and clear.
The clothes are tight, earrings dangling from the ears.
No matter how we look, we'll always praise His name.
And, if you believe, you've got to do the same.
Loud, clear, let the people hear.
Scream, shout, show what it's all about.
Loud, clear, let the people hear.
Scream, shout, show what it's all about.
Some of us were always pushed around in schools.
That's why I wrote this song to sing to pushin' fools.
At least we can say we love doin' what we do.
And we're here to say that you can have salvation too.
There's not much meat here, to be sure; but there wouldn't need to be for such a thematic presentation. Arguably Stryper was using their very appearance and identity to good effect, using the very shock value to reach others: "Wait a minute. A Christian heavy metal band? Really?" It's much the same effect I strive for in my efforts on YouTube. ("Wait a minute. Cartoons on Christian apologetics? Really?")
The two sides of the debate which emerged, and still might:
The debate won't be settled any time soon because it can't be -- there are examples in which each can be true. The question is whether a given expression so leans towards 1 that it compromises on 2. The question here: Where does Stryper fall? Based on this song, their goal as expressed was to reach for 2:
I've changed my ways from wrong to right.
The devil never pays, no, he robs just like a thief in the night
So many bands give the devil all the glory
It's hard to understand, we want to change the story
We want to rock one way, on and on.
You'll see the light some day
All say Jesus is the way.
Satan is a fool and it's so insane.
Some people think he's cool, you play with fire,
You'll feel the pain.
Why lose when you could win? Give God a try.
The devil's not your friend, the truth is not a lie.
I've changed my ways from wrong to right
Evil never pays, no, the truth is not a lie.
Even as a preterist I can't help but commend a group that is so bold as to call Satan a "fool" -- and so directly strike the heart of a countercultural conception of Satan as a figure to be admired. Moreover, such a message could hardly have endeared them to other heavy metal bands or many typical heavy metal fans. If their goal was to be like the world for the sake of it, this was not the way to do it -- or with lyrics like this:
They say that rock and roll is strong
But God's the rock that makes us roll
Don't need no drugs to help us push on
We've got his power in our souls
On the other hand, even at this early date we could see a bit of the unfortunate overfamiliarity with God creeping in, as here...maybe?
You know I really love you
Your love is beautiful, lasting and true.
I've searched for a true love for such a long, long time
Now, my search has ended, yes, cause you are mine.
I'll always love you and I'll always tell you so
As long as I'm with you, my love I'll always show
Whenever I'm sad and feeling real blue
I begin to feel happy as I sit and think of you.
I think of your face and your personality.
You are so beautiful, you mean everything to me.
I say "maybe" because I am not clear on whether the subject of this song is God -- or some person. The concrete terms (like "face") point to the latter -- unless these fellows were covert Mormons! I found a few other songs of this type as well, but have no memory of them on Christian radio (and nor does Mrs H -- and she DID understand them!).
On the other hand, this one was clearly speaking of God:
Some people think they're happy, livin' for themselves.
But when they're sad they long for something else.
And you can find the answer in an honest way.
To get you thru the sadness, to start a whole new day.
We've found a life that keeps us happy.
Yes, we have and we'll live eternally.
We'll always have the light to see, and so can you.
Are you feeling lonely?
Are you feeling blue?
Does your life seem empty?
You know what to do.
You say you've go some troubles, yeah, oh so many downs.
You need a light to lift you off the ground.
And if your life feels senseless, just accept the Lord.
And He'll make you see things you never have seen before.
An everlasting life abounding, oh yeah.
Yes, He will and He's always giving more.
And His light will never stop shining, it's for you, yes it is.
This is an early (yet mild) expression of God as therapeutic. It has a ways to go before it reaches the almost pathological overfamiliarity of "I Can Only Imagine". Other songs by Stryper offer similarly mild expressions, but are balanced out by bold, in-your-face challenges like this one, which establish God's transcendent superiority:
We are the soldiers under God's command
We hold His two-edged sword within our hands
We're not ashamed to stand up for what's right
We win without sin, it's not by our might
And we're fighting all the sin
And the good book -- it says we'll win!
Soldiers, Soldiers, under command
Soldiers, Soldiers, fighting the Lords battle plan
Are you a soldier under God's command
Help fight the good fight, join us while you can
The battle that's waiting is fought so easily
Through Him, without sin there is victory
And were fighting all the sin
And the good book -- it says we'll win!
It is also interesting to note that Stryper did a rendition of Battle Hymn of the Republic!
Since that time, apparently, Stryper has become somewhat disillusioned with Christian music, and I have to say I can’t blame them. Judgmental and ignorant leaders like Swaggart certainly did little to encourage them with their surface judgments. While I doubt Stryper was perfect in all they expressed, their critics appear to have been too distrustful of innovation to understand what was going on – and I cannot help but wonder if that fear of innovation had anything to do with the insipid contents of today’s Christian music.
The singer designated Mandisa might well be regarded as a typical American success story: Featured on (but not a major winner on) the American Idol television program (which -- sorry! -- I have yet to see an eposide of), she parlayed her success there into a recording career in Christian music. A sample of her lyrics makes it fairly easy to understand why: With this singer -- who will be the last examined in this series for the time being -- we come full circle to yet another entertainer for whom the Gospel has been transformed into therapy.
The repeated theme of many songs we sampled is essentially that God brings victory and joy in life. Sin? Not even mentioned. Doctrine? Never heard of it. Instead, what we have is what might happen if Joel Osteen put his sermons to music:
look at my life
And I still can't believe it
How did I make it
To where I stand now?
You don't understand
I was up against the whole world
And all I could feel was it breaking me down
But out of a hopeless situation
There came a song of redemption
Life may push my heart to the limit
But I won't let go
Of the joy in my soul
‘Cause everything can change in a minute
And the world may try
But they're never gonna steal my joy
So get up, stand up
And rise above it
If every plan
That you've made goes so wrong
You don't have to give in to the struggle
You may be down
But don't stay there for long
In every hopeless situation
There is a song of redemption
The world may say
You're never gonna make it
The world may say
You're not strong enough to take it
But I don't care
‘Cause the joy of the Lord is real
And they're never gonna steal my joy
In this, "the Lord" becomes a tacked on sentiment that rounds off a paean glorifying in how wonderful life is when it is fixed. Indeed, if the last two lines were lost for good (after the manner of Mark's Gospel) we might now know whether the object of affection was the Lord, a Hindu avatar, or maybe even caffieniated drinks.
The bit of theology I found in our sample isn't particularly heartening -- here we find the bankrupt epistemology of divine communication -- which we have seen in, for example, Joyce Meyer, in past articles -- put into verse:
Have you ever heard a love song
That set your spirit free
Have you ever watched a sunrise
And felt you could not breathe
What if it's Him
What if it's God speaking
Have you ever cried a tear that
You could not explain
Have you ever met a stranger
That already knew your name
What if it's Him
What if it's God speaking
Who knows how He'll get a hold of us
Get our attention to prove He is enough
He'll do and He'll use
Whatever He wants to
To tell us I love you
Have you ever lost a loved one
Who you thought should still be here
Do you know what it feels like
To be tangled up in fear
What if He's somehow involved
What if He's speaking through it all
His ways are higher
His ways are better
Though sometimes strange
What could be stranger
Than God in a manger
God is speaking
I love you
Though less tragically trivial than Meyer's profession that the Holy Spirit told her to make her husband fruit salad, or Charles Stanley's claim that God told him to eat chicken soup for a cold, the epistemology of divine communication is basically the same: God's voice can be in just about anything -- because it has been in some unusual things before (e.g, the manger reference); so why not just about anything we can think of otherwise?
And yet again here, we have the God not of the Exodus, but the god of Counseling Session:
If what you thought was the truth is a lie
And what you fought to keep on breathing has died
You face the lonely nights and wrestle with the dark
And you reach to find the love to fill the space inside your heart
It's hard to put it into words the way you feel
It's an ache and emptiness that lingers still
Are you a victim of the past without a trace of hope in sight?
And it all goes by so fast without a way to make it right
If you worry, don't worry
God will come and wrap His arms around you
It wouldn't be too much
For Him to love you as He found you
And it may seem like you're too far gone
But He loves you like His only Son
And He will come
He will come
From the bounty of a river there's a flow
And from the beauty of the Father's heart's a home
It never leaves you empty no, and never leaves you bare
So come and bring your guilt and shame
Come and leave it there
If you're willing, He is willing
Oh, you don't have to be worthy
You don't have to be anything but willing to fall into His arms
Willing to fall into His arms
The latter stanza haas a theme we have seen in modern preaching, probably too much so: That of not needing to be "worthy" for God to accept you. While that is of course quite true in one sense, the modern sense now relates to themes of self-esteem - a concept unknown in the Biblical world. Biblical peoples considered themselves unworthy in the sense of not having sufficient honor to match God's honor, and thereby warrant His patronage. This is about as far from a therapeutic faith as one can get.
As many times as the above themes are repeated, we need say little more, but will close with a look at the one song I did recognize as having been on the radio:
Some people try to listen to the bottom of a bottle
Some people try to listen to a needle in their arm
Some people try to listen to the money in their pocket
Some people try to listen to another's arms
You and I are not that different
We got a void and we're just trying to fill it up
With something that will give just a little peace
All we want is a hand to reach to
Open arms that say I love you
We'd give anything to hear
The voice of a Savior
Some people try to find it with blind ambition
Some people try to find it where no one else has gone
Some people try to find it in the crowns of victory
Some people get defeated lose the strength to carry on
Some people try to find it in the shadow of a steeple
Some people try to find it in the back row pew
Some people try to find it in the arms of Jesus
That's where I found it, how about you?
The theme of therapeutic closeness to God or Jesus is again obvious; but beyond that is revealed a core accuracy: Yes, it is all done to fill a void. But the desire for the god of Therapy is, in its own way, as bad as the bottle or the needle. In commenting on the many books by writers like Meyer, Lucado, Stanley, etc over the past several years, we have occassionally asked whether Christians might not be addicted to the self-help genre. If they are, then it is little surprise that Christian music now produces so many singers like Mandisa whose own productions reflect service to that deity.
In close: Obviously I am not saying such persons are at risk of damnation. However, they will indeed find that their rewards have already been received -- and may well be shocked to find that the reaction to their works on earth would have been more favorable had Simon Cowell been their judge rather than Jesus.
Yes....I know that much about American Idol, at least!
-JPH