Charis & Aletheia

Test Post Using Word ‘07

2007-11-05T14:32:00.001-05:00

This is a test post. I am using Microsoft Word 2007 for the first time and posting directly to the Imaginations Captive blog. It would be helpful if it would work since there is more flexibility and speed in using Word than in using the blogger editing program and it is much easier to save files on my own computer this way.

Point number 1
Point number 2
Point number 3
Point number 4
Point number 5
Point number 6

Colossians' "False Wisdom": Formalism, Magic & Technology

2006-03-22T14:15:00.000-05:00

In order to get a grasp of what Colossians is refuting it is important to have an understanding of the descriptions of the “wisdom” Paul is opposed to and, if possible, to determine how the various descriptions are unified. Below is a summary list of the terms Paul uses to describe the system of thought and practice he was rebuking in Colossae.

“Philosophy” (2:8)
“Vain Deceit” (2:8)
Tradition of Men (2:8)
“stoicheia” of the cosmos– fundamental order of the world; “the abc’s of something”; rudimentary elements; basic elements; basic laws; angelic beings or 'gods' who control the cosmos (2:8)
judge in food or drink, festival, new moon, Sabbaths (2:16)
“humility” (implied as false humility) (2:18)
“Worship of angels”; veneration of angelic beings; using angels to aide in worship and attaining help from God; calling on “assistant gods” (2:18)
Intruding into things which he has not seen (seeking visionary experiences) (2:18)
Vainly puffed up by a fleshly mind (2:18)
Not holding fast to “the head”- Christ; (2:19)
Regulations (rituals) ‘do not touch, do not taste, do not handle’ (2:21)
Commandments and doctrines of men; man made religion; human creativity, not rooted in divine revelation (2:22)
Self-will religion; worship that emphasizes free will and the importance of the individual will (2:23)
Self-abasement; neglect (severe treatment) of the body (2:23)
all the practices are of “no value against fleshly indulgence” (2:23)

Some of these terms bring to mind the kind of legalism that Paul addresses in Galatians and that the Gospels describe Jesus encountering in (some of) the Pharisees. However, some of the terms are different from Galatians and the Gospels.

The strongest associations with Jewish/OT Law legalism are the terms “shadow of things to come” (like book of Hebrews), “festivals,” “new moon,” “sabbaths,” “traditions of men” (like Jesus’ words against the Pharisees) and perhaps “regulations” (though we might have expected the term “law” [nomos]).

The terms “judge in food or drink,” “fundamental principles of the world” (stoicheia, kosmos), and “… do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” could refer to Judaic legalism, but it is not as obvious that they do.

The terms “philosophy,” “worship of angels,” “intruding into things not seen,” or “severe treatment of the body” are unexpected when compared to Romans and Galatians. Neither does the notion of Jewish/OT law based legalism explain the emphasis on “principalities and powers” in Colossians, which is more connected with the book of Ephesians.

What were people devoted to the law doing worshipping angels and taking pride in visions? Angels does seem to have a connection with “principalities and powers,” but what do these have to do, if anything, with restrictions on eating and drinking?

FORMALISM

It is nearly certain there is a kind of “formalism” at the center of what Colossians rebukes, but this formalism seems to be somewhat different from the formalism of the Pharisees in the gospels or the Judiazers of Galatians and Romans. There is enough dissimilarity to the terms used elsewhere to look for other explanations. While any formalism might be called “legalism” it seems to be of a different kind than what Jesus encountered in the Pharisees and what Paul addresses elsewhere.

MAGICAL ROOTS IN ASIA MINOR AND IN THE HISTORY OF "WISDOM"

Acts 19 informs us that there was a strong Jewish interest in the occult and exorcism in Asia minor and also that there was a significant practice of magic in Ephesus and Asia minor, which included Colossae.

Acts 19:19 Also, many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver.

Magic and wisdom were considered synonymous concepts by many groups in the ancient world. ONe of the most popular Jewish books of this period was "The Testament of Solomon" which was chock full of incantations and techniques for controlling angels to do the will of the "wise" person. Many of these techniques relate to "little and mundane things" like making someone fall in love with you or giving you a good day.

This connection of wisdom and magic is evident even in the development of the English language where "the magi” of Matthew 2 are translated as “wise men,” and the root word “wis” in wisdom is also the root of “wizard.”

CS Lewis notes in The Abolition of Man how close the concepts of "magic" and "technique" or "technology" are to each other, strongly suggesting that we do not need to be only concerned about "magic" directly, but also be concerned about dependence on technology to accomplish spiritual good.

Noting this use of magic as "wisdom" can help us solve the riddle of Colossians when we consider that "worship of angels" does not require the literal bowing down to angels, but can properly mean using and calling on angels as intermediaries in the working out of God's plan. The records from the ancient world of Asia minor are filled with techniques for controlling angels, gods and demons for the purposes of accomplishing spiritual objectives.

Whereas "basic principles of the world" ("stoicheia") to us resonates with the laws of science (or with some interpreters as "legalism") it would be helpful to remember that Colossians was written in the first century in the time that many people believed "the gods" and "the angels" held the universe together and that the way to control the universe was through finding ways to harnass the power of these divine beings. Seeing the "basic principles of the world" ("stoicheia") as "angels" and "principalites and powers" only seems like a stretch if we do not know the beliefs and superstitutions of ancient times. There is good archeological evidence supporting the use of "stoicheia" in reference to divine beings and the use of magic to control them.

I believe investigating the connection between magic and wisdom in Asia minor is the most productive route to take to discern the meaning of the terms in Colossians and that we will find the practices of magic best explain, and tie together, all the terms used in Colossians including the problem of diet restrictions. It was common practice to treat the body severly in fasting before seeking angelic beings ("gods") in "a visionary" experience.

We will find that Contemporary styles defenders, who are fond of accusing defenders of traditional music forms as being "legalistic," have at least as much, if not more, to be concerned about in Colossians’ warnings about magical wisdom. The music of our contemporary is deeply rooted in traditions of voodoo and magic. Use of this music has been linked with promises of “spiritual results” using extra-Scriptural, human based, techniques.

These will be the subjects of my next couple of posts.

Colossians: Christ is the Supreme Wisdom & Power of the Cosmos

2006-03-14T12:17:00.000-05:00

If it is unlikely that Colossians 2:21-23 denies moderation and promotes gluttony, what does it mean? The key to understanding the terms and significance of any passage in Scripture requires understanding the context - the context within the section, context within the whole book, historical context, and the context within the whole of Scripture. Here I aim to outline the main theme of the book of Colossians. I hope to later show how this relates to Colossians 2:16-23.

One of the obstacles to a clear understanding of Colossians is identifying what it was (and is) specifically rebuking. This is “the Colossian Heresy” or the “Colossians Philosophy.” It is one of the great mysteries and most debated subjects in New Testament studies.

Colossians only contains a brief references to the system that Paul was warning against. These short references would have been very clear to the original readers, though they can be opaque to us. This should caution us against reading the phrases in terms of our experience. Without considering what these meant we cannot know what they mean.

There are several types of evidence that we can use to understand what the apostle Paul was rebuking. The first kind is the positive instruction that is the orthodox answer to the false system. It is likely that the positive teaching is not arbitrary, but is meant to answer the need created by false doctrine and practices. The references to (potential) heresy, and the coherence of the book, are significant enough to warrant seeing most of the book as an answer to it. The second evidence is the terms and descriptions used to describe the heresy itself. This is found in chapter 2 of Colossians. The third type of evidence involves information about the background historical and geographical situation of the city of Colossae in the first century that may help make better sense of the first two types of evidence. It can be helpful to discover if terms or phrases might refer to specific ideas and activities. Specifically, the Greek term “stoicheia” (“fundamental principles”) is a critical term in the book of Colossians. Determining what the term would have meant to the people of Colossae will go a long way toward clarifying the nature of what Paul was rebuking.

In this post I outline the basic positive message of Colossians with a few implications drawn for understanding what it is rebuking.

The clearest theme of the book of Colossians (other than “Christ” - who is the main theme of every NT book) are the subjects of Wisdom and “Pre-Eminence” (power) Colossians proclaims that Christ is all the wisdom we need for life. Not surprisingly, wisdom and power go together in Colossians. “Knowledge is Power,” as the saying goes. Note the following emphases on Wisdom and Power in Colossians:

1:5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel,
1:9-11 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy;
1:13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for him.
1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
1:27-29 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.

2:2-3 ...attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God... and of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

2:6-7 As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.

2:9-10 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

2:23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom...

3:2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.

3:10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another...
3:17 And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus...

4:5-6 Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside... that you may know how you ought to answer each one.

Colossians proclaims the abundant power and wisdom of Christ in releasing believers from “the power of darkness” (1:13). Christ is shown as both CREATOR and REDEEMER (“re-creator”), and that He is Master and Head over ALL THINGS (Col.1:15- 19), especially over the “principalities and powers.”

Colossians insists that Christ is “more basic” than “the basic principles/order of the world” (Greek word stoicheia = the “abc’s” of the world) since he created them and has redeemed them. Christ’s power and wisdom are FOR all who have believed in Him and who continue to believe in Him through the gospel – which is the word of the wisdom and power of Christ (Col 1:23-29). Knowing Christ is better than "basic principles" because He founded all things and HE IS the "First Principle."

The positive instruction emphasizes the moral nature of Christ’s “wisdom and power” and focuses on reconciling God’s moral demands on sinful men. Whatever the nature of “the principalities and powers” they are not defeated by direct attack, but by dealing with the moral demands of Holy God.

What can we tell about “the Colossians heresy” from examining the positive teaching? We may not know the exact details but we can confidently assert the heresy was limiting the believers confidence in the sufficiency and total supremacy of Christ and causing them to look to other things that actually compete against, supplement, or mediate, the supreme and sufficient wisdom and power of Christ. Given the nature of the “application section” in chapter 3 the “supplemental wisdom” is causing them to be vulnerable to, and even alluring them toward, “earthly things” (“the flesh”) – especially in the areas of passions, covetousness, and sexual impurity, as well as pride that divides the body of Christ.

When we compare the positive teaching of Colossians to what it might be warning against as false, we must see that Colossians maintains that anything else, whether an alternative or a “supplement,” takes away from confidence in the wisdom and power of Christ Alone as Supreme and Sufficient.

Because of the very strong statements in Colossians about Christ being over all things, but especially over “dominions and powers,” we should expect that the false system must emphasize gaining wisdom (insight) and power over dark, malevolent, forces. Colossians’ description of that system will be the subject of my next post.

Colossians 2 and the Christian Defense of Gluttony

2006-03-11T13:50:00.000-05:00

Defenders of “Contemporary Christian Music” often use Colossians 2:20-23 to support that pretty much “anything goes” in musical style. This seems to me to parallel a similar issue we are witnessing in diet problems:

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (Col. 2:20-23)

This text is used to show that there should be no emphasis on restraints on Christian freedom in “neutral” externals and that “externals” (like food and music) have no spiritual importance in themselves. Christians are free to let their natural, instinctual, tastes be their guides in matters of eating and musical enjoyment, except where it might affect peace in the body of Christ. The logic is that since "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but joy..." (Romans 14:17) you should feel free to eat and drink as much as you need to create your joy. Spirituality is only "spiritual."

Anyone who promotes moderation and restraint, and teaches that there are built-in laws of nature that should limit human consumption in view of Biblical principles, is claimed to violate the admonitions to “let no one judge you” (Col 2:16) or “beguile you of your reward.” Musical conservatives are said to echo slogans like “do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” (Col 2:21). Restrictions are “the commandments and doctrines of men” (Col 2:22) and are “of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” (Col. 2:23).

This claim implies that the Biblical term “flesh” has little or nothing to do with the actual body and senses – but is only an attitude of the heart. Therefore, it is theoretically possible (and practiced) to regularly eat immense amounts of food and regularly listen to incredibly physically intense music and never commit the sin of gluttony, as long as one does it “to the glory of God” in attitude or “spirit.”

If this is a valid application of Colossians 2 the charge of “legalism” would be a very serious matter for those who advocate that Christians show restraint . However I believe there is good reason to doubt that this is an accurate interpretation and application of Colossians 2. Christians need to do better than just mimic the diet habits of their surrounding culture.

Consider how often God used hunger and thirst to teach Israel spiritual dependence and obedience (Deut 8:3-4). Fasting is commanded and commended many times in Scripture as righteous. Our Lord fasted for 40 days as an act of righteousness, as well as disciplined himself to rise up very early in the morning to pray. John the Baptist was noted for his fairly austere diet and lifestyle. Jesus said that his disciples would fast after he ascended to heaven and even gave instructions on how to fast properly.

True, Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34), but the implication is that this accusation was false and came more from jealousy than an honest evaluation of Jesus’ habits. Advocates of the historic “spiritual disciplines” have maintained that Paul’s command to “mortify the flesh” include the notion of keeping bodily desires in check through moderation (see Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard). Jesus said that the problem with his disciples was not only that their “spirits” were willing and good their “flesh” was insufficiently trained (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38)) to actually put spiritual things first, so they slept during a most crucial experience.

We need perspective. It is common reporting now that high percentages of Americans live off junk food. In fact, Americans are literally dying of gluttony. Obesity and diabetes have become a major health epidemic and are killing more people than all world terrorists combined.

We are also facing an impassioned pursuit of pleasure through musical gluttony, which some Christians have been aggressively promoting. People are consumed with music at near deafening decibel levels for long amounts of time with an intensity of beat and dissonance that is staggering. It has even become a staple diet in worship services in churches. Even "moderate" churches feel the need to give historically high amounts of stimulation in their services. Even with this a significant number of people cannot stand more than a few moments of silence. Most of the music that was considered extremely exciting and cutting edge of sense stimulation in times not very distant past is now considered helplessly boring.

Christians (generally) are not hesitant to say “touch not, taste not, handle not” when it comes to food, and tend to call for restraint and moderation, though they don’t actually practice discipline, and gluttony is frequently treated more as a joke than an actual sin.

Yet so many insist that Colossians 2 requires that we permit the full indulgence of any musical appetite that appeals to us, as long as the words are good and the “spirit” is right. If this interpretation were carried over into the area of food the advice would go something like this:

Let no one judge your taste!. Let your senses and tastes be your guide. God does not care about trivial things like sense experiences and consumption habits. He is only interested in ‘your (spiritual) heart.’ God says these things are ‘merely physical’ and have no spiritual importance. Denying the intense pleasures of sugar-loaded snacks is a severe “neglect of the body!” (Col 2:23).

If you still feel hungry after a good meal, eat more!! Don’t worry, your senses cannot be corrupted, your tastes are always a reliable standard without your conscience getting involved. High need of intense musical stimulation cannot be a sign of domination of flesh and a disinclination toward spiritual realities. Just be certain to quote Scripture between and during all the courses of your meal.

Discipline and restraint are certain signs of legalism and worldliness. There is no such thing as gluttony, so don’t worry about it! Consume all you can crave for the glory of God! The only fault you can have is if your conscience thinks it might be wrong. So don’t let anyone seek to inform your conscience!

If you are bored with your church’s music, find a church with a stronger beat and higher volume! If you are bored at home after 2 hours of listening to mild Christian pop, why not stimulate yourself with something heavier and “edgier?” Don’t worry about how long you listen – its not possible to get too much!

I believe this is a ludicrous position. Is it really "severe treatment of the body" to pursue moderation and disciplined musical and eating styles? Is there a better interpretation of Colossians 2 that makes sense and doesn’t justify gluttony? I think so. I hope to outline it soon.

The Bible and Musical Instruments – “Downplaying” Drums?

2006-03-07T11:12:00.000-05:00

Many Christian proponents of contemporary styles of music summarize the Bible’s view of instruments merely as “the Bible encourages the use of all kinds of instruments.” I don’t dispute this claim, but I have deep reservations about the “merely” part. Even though “many” (by ancient world standards) different kinds of instruments were used at various times with God’s blessing does not exclude consideration of how (in what style) instruments were played and if there were ever restrictions or guiding principles.

There is not an equal emphasis on instruments in Scripture. The harp and lyre hold privileged positions in the Bible, being mentioned far more often than any other instrument (45 & 37 times respectively, to 16 uses of timbrels - KJV), noting that the harp has the distinction as THE 'heavenly' instrument in the book of Revelation. These stringed instruments are given far greater emphasis than others. Also, the Scripture references to “dance music” pales in comparison to the overwhelming emphasis put on lyricism (i.e. - words sung with the lyre), understanding and rationality. This melodic emphasis must be taken into consideration when examining Scriptural guidelines for musical styles. Just considering how one might sing the Psalms is revealing. I've not read anyone who has come up with a way to sing the Psalms with much emphasis on regular, steady, rythym. It is nearly impossible to imagine that one could sing them with "a beat." The form of the text demands a form of chant.

It is worth considering the Biblical evidence of the use of Timbrels/Tambourines (Hebrew: toph) in Temple worship. The books of Chronicles, being focused on Temple worship (accounts missing in Samuel-Kings), display a great appreciation for instruments used in worship.

1Chr 13:8 Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets. 9 And when they came to Chidon's threshing floor, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled….
1Chr 15:16 Then David spoke to the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers accompanied by instruments of music, stringed instruments, harps, and cymbals, by raising the voice with resounding joy
1Chr 15:28 Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn, with trumpets and with cymbals, making music with stringed instruments and harps.
2Chr 5:12 and the Levites who were the singers, all those of Asaph and Heman and Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, stood at the east end of the altar, clothed in white linen, having cymbals, stringed instruments and harps, and with them one hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets- 13 indeed it came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised the LORD, saying: "For He is good, For His mercy endures forever," that the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud,
2Chr 29:25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. 26 The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.
Ezra 3:10 When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests stood in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the ordinance of David king of Israel.
Neh 12:24 … according to the command of David the man of God…. 27 … to celebrate the dedication with gladness, both with thanksgivings and singing, with cymbals and stringed instruments and harps.

1Chronicles 13:8 begins the Chronicler's emphasis on Temple Worship Music by including tambourines along with other instruments. However, tambourines are not mentioned again in the remainder of the lists of "instruments of David" in Chronicles through Nehemiah, which mention other instruments and singing fairly often. The key question is “Why?” Was it assumed to part of those used? But why then are all the other instruments repeated mulitple times?

Another piece of evidence is that the one time Tambourines are mentioned among “David’s instruments” is that it was the first time he tried to bring the ark into Jerusalem (1Chr 15) and Uzzah was tragically killed due to David’s carelessness about following God’s directions.

Did David determine after this disaster that Tambourines were not suitable for temple worship? This should be considered, even though the Tambourine was still used in non-Temple worship occasions (Psalm 89, 149, 150). The evidence at least means the Tambourine was not a dominant instrument used in Temple worship and suggests it was not used at all in Temple worship.

My conclusion is that the Bible recognizes different kinds of instruments are suited to different occasions. Temple worship music was generally more serious and reverent and less “entertaining” than music used for national celebrations. Tambourines are nearly always mentioned with dancing (and women) in Scripture. It is evident that dancing was not part of Temple worship. Therefore the tambourine was not needed or used during those worship times.

A more difficult issue is to determine if there were instruments in the ancient world that the Bible leaves out. Is it possible that the original readers of the Bible saw something about music and the lists of instruments that we tend to miss because we tend to only see “all kinds of instruments?” For example, the instrument the “aulos” was the object of scorn by Greek philosophers. The Bible only mentions it once - in 1Corinthians 14:7. Is this a coincidence? I don't know, but it is something to think about.

The “neo-pagans’ of our time have been insisting that a wide variety of Drums were THE most important part of ancient pagan worship. They claim (e.g. - Mickey Hart and Layne Redmond) that the diminution of the drum was due to Biblical – Hebrew and Christian – religion. Mickey Hart claims to have substantial evidence of many kinds of drums and a large importance placed on rhythm in the pagan religions. If this is true it would seem to cause us to “see the absence” of many drums (except a limited use of tambourines) in Scripture.

In conclusion, I don’t believe the Bible demands elimination of all drums all the time, but I believe the evidence of Scripture with its strong emphasis on LYRICAL (songs with the Lyre) forms of music and a downplaying of rhythmic and ecstatic forms of music does witness against the rising dominance of rhythmic forms of music as means of stirring up interest in the things of the Lord.

The Godliness of Monotony

2006-03-04T18:35:00.000-05:00

I have long thought that the modern craving for everything "new" and constantly changing is a sign of our spiritual decadence. I found a friend recently in G.K. Chesterton who seems to agree with me on this.

Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repitition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical encore. ~ G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Star Wars as Global Peace

2006-01-30T11:26:00.000-05:00

I am often struck by how an apparently incidental and trivial fact reveals something quite important and profound. Biblical characters whose names actually signify something important about their lives comes to mind as an example. Sometimes these connections are probably just coincidental. Other times we are forced to consider if they are not clues about underlying design and themes of “evil conspiracies” and divine providence.

The movement of George Lucas’ enterprise “Lucas Films” to the Presidio National Park in San Francisco strikes me as this kind of ironic connection. The Presidio was once a United States military base and played an integral part of the plan to protect and promote the peace of the United States.

Now the Presidio has been devoted to the task of fostering world peace by including organizations with the goal of creating peace by changing “global consciousness.” The organizations include the United Religions Initiative, the Thoreau Center and the Gorbachev Foundation (which recently moved from the Presidio to Pittsburgh).
A brochure from one of the organizations in the Presidio links

"military past with a future of promise and protection – one that recognizes that defense no longer must be based solely on political and military strength, but on stewardship of the world’s human and physical resources through global cooperation."

Mikhail Gorbachev summarized the purpose of these organizations:

"We should… help in the development of a global consciousness… to change the world for the better”

There is hardly any cultural “force” that is uniting the world with images and themes more than George Lucas’ Star Wars. Star Wars has been changing global consciousness. The only question is how serious is this change. It can be granted that it is not taken very seriously by most people, not even by most Christians. But these apparently small ironies are all pointing to things that are more significant than most Christians seem willing to admit. This is something I would like to “blog” more about soon.

Albert Mohler on Reading

2006-01-27T18:55:00.000-05:00

Dr. Albert Mohler has a very good blog on the importance of reading and some practical advice on how to improve the quality of your reading (here).

Importance of Philosophy of Music - Updated

2006-01-26T17:29:00.000-05:00

I' m convinced that we need to give a Biblical philosophy of music significant and careful attention. This is not because I believe music is the most important issue of our time. The gospel is always the most important issue. Music is not redemptive and is not the hope of our salvation - neither ours or others - again, the gospel alone holds such importance.

However, music IS one of the most powerful forces in our time. We have more music than any previous generation dreamed was possible (or desirable). Even though movies and TV might have equal or more importance in some respects, music itself has a dominant place in both of these. TV and Movies would be radically different without music and they would not be nearly as popular or captivating.

Even more significant to me is the tremendous importance given to music by Christians and churches in our time. Music is one of the most dominant features of churches and Christianity at the present time. Music is being heavily promoted and relied upon to accomplish what are widely considered to be Christian goals and objectives. Church leaders like Rick Warren are testifying that their extremely large churches would be only small churches if not for their particular music program. Churches have been dividing over music styles, as also are families, sometimes with members of the same family attending different worship services to find their music of choice.

All this is happening with almost no guidance from a philosophy of music (as music that is, there is some attention given to words). In fact, there is widespread belief that there should be no philosophy of music other than pragmatic considersation of how many people and what kind of people the church wants to attract with their music.

I believe the absence of even a quest for philosophy of music is a critical mistake. Here are some of the reasons we need to strive for a Biblical theology and philosophy of music.

1. Most people who believe the Bible believe that the Bible does not explicity address the area of music styles, so if we are to see and show that God does have concerns about musical style it will have to proceed from general Biblical principles and "worldview" and be worked out in a philosophy of music.

Whether or not the Bible explicity addresses musical styles is no longer the key issue. Even if it does, it is clear that a large majority of the evangelical and fundamental church in our time does not agree. This is in spite of the diligent efforts of musical conservatives over the past 30 years.

Plato wrote that we need not be concerned about those careless about musical style because the enterprise will destroy itself in due time all on its own. I expect this is a real possibility, but I can not be so hardened about the fate of so many churches and the devasting impact that would result if so much of what is known as Christianity in our time disintegrates. I do agree that we should spend the majority of our time and attention addressing and preparing those who will give attention in order to prepare the way for when the need for standards and philosophy becomes recognized and dominant once again.

If those who believe the Bible does speak directly about musical style desire to convice others they are going to have to do some foundational work (theology and philosophy) showing how they see something that others are blind to. If we are going to adequately train this, and the next, generation we need to focus on a coherent philosophy of music rooted deeply in Scripture and Scriptural truth.

2. We should be committed to a project of seeing and showing how ALL THINGS are integrated (united / made one) under the Sovereignty of God and Jesus Christ.

I cannot accept the current man-centered, even self-centered, anti-philosophy of music based on a “dis-integrated” view of creation and the arts. I am distressed that so many who otherwise believe that the holiness, majesty, beauty and centrality of God should be seen in all areas of life find God irrelevant to music as music. Just about the only connection we hear about is “joy,” but there is very little attention given to the musical or theological nature of joy and its relation to the rest of God’s attributes, man's nature and attributes, or God's creation structures.

3. Philosophy of music often reflects similar beliefs and practices in other areas of life. Examining philosophy of music is one route to getting to the core of other life issues.

Philosophies of life tend to permeate the wide range of activities people are involved in. History strongly supports seeing this connection. With little or no restriction put on musical style in our time, the philosophy behind musical habits will be relatively free from hypocrisy, and we will be more able to discern what people truly desire. With external freedom from controls it is easier to see what truly motivates and drives people.

It is unlikely that the rationale we use for music will be quarantined to the area of music alone. I don’t think music directly causes beliefs and actions in other areas, but it certainly has some influence. I expect the most accurate explanation is that the same fundamental beliefs that we have that lead us to embrace a certain philosophy of music also lead us to embrace the same kind of approach to other areas of life.

For example, is there a connection between the self-centered, hedonistic philosophy of music and the emphasis on immediate pleasure in other areas of life? It seems likely. Is it an accident that parents are reluctant to discipline their children at the same time they no longer encourage children in the discipline required to appreciate classical music or to play instruments requiring considerable discipline, like piano and violin?

4. If we have no philosophy of music the forces that arise to drive music may cause considerable problems, especially in Worship. Music is too important to the worship of God for marketing and "self" to become the standards.

I don’t understand how pastors handle it theologically when they plan services thinking primarily about what people’s preferences might be. It is true that many leaders do not see that “self” is the standard, but even reading the writings of those defending and promoting pop music in worship is enough to see that self is the criteria for judging. They only use different terms to describe this awkward standard.

How long will it take the contemporary church to see that the "dis-integration" of churches into segments of musical preferences is just as much a violation of the unity of the church as Jew and Gentile and Slave and Freeman were? We have been paying the price of the dislocation of the young from the older for a couple of generations now. How long will it take us to see that our lack of philosophy of music is one of the key factors driving this problem?

5. Philosophy of music helps us become knowledgeable of ourselves, of our desires, habits and affections. Without a philosophy of music we have no standard against which to check ourselves and we risk becoming ignorant of ourselves in this important area.

We need more than knowing whether we like something or not. We need to know if it is good for us and in what direction it is taking us. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that our culture is become desensitized in nearly every area, including music. The same volume and emphasis on rythym and dissonance is not producing the same level of pleasure as it used to. This cannot only be true of the whole, it must also be true of many individuals within the culture. Without a philosophy of music people are unable to see, be concerned about, or see the consequences of this densensitization. Desire for pleasure needs to be measured against standards or it becomes greedy and demanding and can take control of us.

6. Pop/rock music has become one of the, if not the, key factor that many churches use to draw and keep people. Why is this, what is the proper response, and what will be the fallout?

No pastor can ignore this subject or avoid making decisions about it. I want to lead the people God has entrusted to my care according to informed judgment. The importance of this supposedly “neutral” thing is much too strong for me to be comfortable in depending on it without understanding the nature of what is going on. If the church gurus of the day are to be believed we would guess many thousands and thousands of people would stop going to church next week if their churches dropped their use of pop use this week. This should be of great concern to us.

7. Philosophy of Music was a perennial interest historically. I believe it should be revived and continued.

Musical conservatives are hardly unique in history in expressing great interest in music and its relationship to spirituality and character formation. The historical record is replete with expressions of awe, and even bewilderment, at the mystery of music. Many of the great thinkers of the past gave prime significance to philosophy of music, usually more importance to the philosophy of music than to music itself. Examples of these thinkers include; Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Averroes, Vincenzo Galilei (Galileo’s father), Isaac Newton, Shakespeare, Milton, John Dryden, and Martin Luther. Many of these works on music were studied through the ages and some were even thought to be critical for understanding the nature of the world. Our age is basically ignorant of the fact that the early great composers were specifically seeking to embody the vision of this great tradition.

Philosophy of music fell on hard times in and through the 20th century and has remained in relative disrepair up to our current time. I would like to see the historical quest for a philosophy of music to be resumed so that our time does not perpetuate the 20th century’s ignorance.

8. Key opponents to Christianity believed musical style and philosophy would be the tool to overthrow Christian dominance. I want to understand if they were right and, if so, how they knew.

Fredrick Nietzsche, and a few other leaders of modernity and post-modernity, predicted that Christianity could, and would, lose its cultural influence through a revolution in music. I don’t fully understand why they thought this and how they knew but it distresses me that it appears that they may have been right. What they promoted may need to be undone if the effects are to be undone.

The same verbal themes of sexual and religious revolution that we think of originating in the 1960's were widespread in the mid to late 1800's. It wasn't until these themes were united in certain kinds of music that they took over the culture. This is what Nietszche said would be necessary to produce a cultural revolution (although he thought the result would be more positive than it has been). Do Christians in our time understand what happend and why?

9. Musical quality and skills are declining and the church by and large is actively contributing to the problem. Christians ought instead to promote and strive for “humble greatness” in musical forms.

Most of the church is now committed to a view of music that could never lead to the creation of great music. The very concept of greatness has been taken away and prohibited. The church could never have led the rise of the great music of Western culture with its current dominate attitudes about music. We can only be glad the contemporary fad did not begin before the church produced a culture committed to transcendent standards of greatness.

Musical skills on the whole are declining steeply. Music education in school has been hit hard. Churches are no longer singing in parts or a cappella. There is very little music sung by families as family edification. Some maintain that current “artists” have singing ability, but a large percentage of us don’t believe it is true. “Artists” often seem more skilled in the techniques of titillation and seduction than musical excellence.

Fortunately there still are composers and artists working outside the pragmatic and sensually driven mediocrity of the evangelical church. It is sad it must be this way.

The Character of William Wilberforce

2006-01-23T19:34:00.000-05:00

In reading "Hero for Humanity" there were many things about the beliefs and character of W. Wilberforce that impressed me. Here are a few of them:

1. His conversion to Christ was sincere and impacted every aspect of his life. He genuniely sought to bring every thought captive to Christ. He meditated on Scripture daily and memorized and recited long passages on a regular basis. He saw his entire life in the context of his faith in Christ.

2. He had a resolute confidence in the sovereignty and providence of God and applied this to his life by finding humility in his successes and encouragement in his setbacks and failures. He was "easily" encouraged. Late in his life, when his son lost nearly the whole family fortune (about $2,000,000 in our money) in a bad business dealing Wilberforce willingly sold his home to pay the bills and rejoiced in the opportunity to live more simply and to be able to live with his children and grandchildren.

3. He was deeply committed to an industrious and profitable life and to using his God-given gifts for the benefit of mankind and to the best of his abilities. He was diligent, ambitious for God and others, and persevering. He hated to waste time and yet knew the importance of quietness, reflection and communion with God. Early in his career he set out to accomplish two great objectives, (1) the abolition of the slave trade and slavery, (2) the improvement of public morality and manners. His steadfast determination endured his whole life and his accomplishments were spectacular.

4. He worked tirelessly for the sake of the oppressed when the majority of his generation (at first) thought it wrong or impossible. He was never satisfied that he had made significant progress in helping others, but it is difficult to know how he could have done more. Selflessness is frequently unaware of its own goodness and impact.

5. He was known as the best conversationalist and most personable figure of his generation. He focused his life on being interested in others and being interesting to them. He was genorous and sincere in his hospitality and entertained in his home regularly.

6. He focused and used his uncommon gift of public speaking as a powerful weapon of righteousness. His colleagues in parliament marveled at his felicity with words and speech, and that was in a day of many great orators.

7. He married only because he found a woman whose beliefs and character matched his own. He had no intention of marrying without such qualities. He genuinely loved his wife and never wavered in that devotion (although there is not nearly enough said about her in this biography).

8. He was known as a loving, playful father who cared deeply for his children. His children grew to speak of him in glowing terms. This was and is a contrast to a multitude of public figures.

9. He was an avid reader and dedicated himself to reading the best literature, philosophy and theology available - both ancient and recent. He even taught his family to read "demanding" books and constantly discussed books with his children.

10. He loved nature and studied the glory of God in nature in daily walks.

11. He loved great music, art and beauty and brought into into his home. He considered development in appreciation for fine arts was an essential part of forming good character and sensitivity.

12. He was exceedingly difficult to dislike and attack. Those who attacked him, and many did, found themselves in a difficult public situation since nearly everyone thought, even many of those who disagreed with him, that he was one of the kindest, fairest minded men of their time.

13. He consistently used his wealth to help promising young men rise to their potential, often paying their debts and school bills.

14. It was striking how many of his contemporaries commented on how much larger his mind and soul were than his body. People were struck by how such a small man could have had such a large impact.

His biography is well worth reading.

William Wilberforce and My Ignorance

2006-01-21T12:39:00.000-05:00

I recently finished reading Kevin Belmonte's biography of William Wilberforce (Hero for Humanity, 2002, NavPress). My soul was greatly stirred.

Many of the authors I respect have written highly about the importance of reading biographies. Yet I'm ashamed to admit I have an internal resistance to giving time and attention to biographies (but not as much as resistance to poetry). As I enter into mid-life I become increasingly aware of my own ignorance and poor education. Not that I blame anyone but myself. I took too many easy paths when better things were available.

I knew very little about Wilberforce before reading this biography. This in spite of the fact there was a college named after Wilberforce within a few miles of my college. Curiousity never got the best of me. I did know that he had something to do with the abolition of slavery in England, but basically nothing else.

Wilberforce's lifelong battle to abolish the slave trade and slavery itself and against the depraved morals and manners in early 19th century England is a fascinating story in itself. But I found the character and personality of Wilberforce himself to be most powerful. One of my favorite quotes in the book was that Wilberforce "was the most easily amused man I ever met." This sums up much of his life. Wilberforce was genuinely interested in just about everything, thefore he was "easily amused" because he met no one or no subject that did not interest him. He stands in very stark contrast to the self-centered boredom of our time.

Wilberforce's life story is a tremendous encouragement and rebuke to me. He is an encouragement because his convictions that made him a great man are very close to my growing convictions about life and our place. In both his world and my world those convictions are considered outlandish and unnecessary. He is a rebuke because he far surpassed me in the application of those convictions. I pray to strive for the same consistency and integrity of life and soul as this dear man.

What is CCM? An Outline

2006-01-19T12:37:00.000-05:00

This post lists an outline of principles that I believe define, shape and guide Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). Perhaps someday I will tease out the meaning and implications of each of these.

I am not claiming that every person within CCM pledges allegiance to all of these points. They are representative of the movement as a whole. I am not claiming that most people are self-conscious about these principles. These are absorbed from the shape of our times more than they are concluded from reasoned argument. I believe there are individuals within CCM who are seeking to change some of these. I think it probable that it is an impossible task while still being what we know of as “CCM.”

Characteristics of Contemporary Christian Music Philosophy

1. “Contemporary” = Current is the defining Quality - An antinomian philosophy of music (Musical Existentialism: “Existence Justifies Itself” - no laws/standards should govern music).

2. “All Music is Created Equal”: Taste is merely Subjective; Music is neutral and objectively without (negative) meaning

3. Individual Taste Reigns Supreme (although highly susceptible to marketing forces)

4. Music and Musical Passions are Incorruptible (Pelagianism)

5. Christian Words Make "Christian" Music – Only Words can be Christian

Christian words should be only "mildly" Christian and focus on what may be attractive to unbelievers
Lyrics should not seem "preachy' or "dogmatic", since modern people resist indications of authority
Lyrics should arise from, and focus on, personal experience.
Sin and Judgment should only be mentioned if framed in a context that makes it uncertain how serious to take it

6. Immediacy – Christ as mediator means we do not need mediation – nothing should be between us and our goal (related to “triumphalism”).

7. Worship “in spirit” and with “the whole heart” is important to God and to man.

8. "In Spirit” means “passion.” “The Heart” means the passions & romantic passions. “The Whole Heart” means with abundant passion.

9. God Looks (only) at the Heart (Will/Intentions); God cares little or nothing about externals.

10. Be “All Things to All People” (Missions Rationale Justifies)

11. Core Youth Culture is essentially good or "neutral"

Youth means Boundless physical energy and it is a Good (and nearly any expressed form of that energy is also good)
Liberation of Energy is Good; “Culture” should liberate and not restrict (note: this is a rejection of what the term culture used to mean)
Excitement is Good; Boredom is Bad; "Self" is the standard of 'exciting' and 'boring.'
People should associate according to preferences (Ideals cannot make real, personable, bonds)
Expectations should be Low; High expectations, especially 'demands,' create rebels.
Privileges should be Expanding; Responsibilities are Limiting and should be kept to a Minimum
Fun and “lightness” is necessary to get and keep attention
Popularity is self-justifying
"Youth Culture" does not refer so much to an age as an attitude and shared disposition, although it targets the young.

12. Core Rock Music Values are essentially good or "neutral" (without “the negative stuff”)

Youth Culture (see above) is Self-Justifying (it needs no defense or explanation)
Having Fun IS the point; Joy and Fun are nearly the same.
Primitive is better than cultured because it is “more authentic” (Romanticism, “the Noble Savage”)
Instinctual and visceral is also more authentic than reasoned.
“Honesty” (Self-Expression) is the Highest Value (Hypocrisy is the [only?] sin. It is the inevitable sin of cultures which supress self-expression)
Bodily Pleasure & Sensuality – Excited physical sensation is a self-justifying spiritual good if the intention is good
Immediacy – fulfillment should be immediate
Religion (spirituality) is within and Experiential

13. Good Experience is the point of music. Analysis of music (like this post) is worthless and totally misses the point.

What is CCM? - Part Two: 'All Music was Created Equal'

2006-01-17T14:58:00.000-05:00

A definition of CCM must first identify the philosophy behind CCM that drives it and not focus too quickly on forms and styles. Particular forms are the result of more fundamental beliefs, attitudes and dispositions. Only after an understanding of these basic beliefs and values will the “fruit” make sense.

In this second post on identifying the nature of CCM I point out the very important role of insisting on "equality" between musical forms and the implications of this view for the musical styles that become dominant.

1. Equality & Democracy in Music

CCM Magazine once published the following “creed:”

The Christian Rocker’s Creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all music was created equal, that no instrument or style of music is in itself evil – that the diversity of musical expression which flows forth from man is but one evidence of the boundless creativity of our Heavenly Father." (CCM Magazine, Nov 1988, p. 12)

I have no idea how many would still hold to this creed but I believe it indicates some important things about CCM as it developed and as it exists today.

First, there has been a strong sense within CCM that freedom or Christian liberty is at stake and that CCM saw (and sees) itself as fighting a revolutionary battle for freedom and democracy. The mimicking of the language of the Declaration of Independence reveals a deep current of “revolution” and breaking barriers to freedom. The idea of “freedom” or “liberty” was an often repeated theme in the writings and “music wars” of the 80’s – 90’s, the years of the triumph of CCM. It is seen as in the category of "meat offered to idols" as Paul addressed in Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8.

The only concern was to "not offend a weaker brother." But a "weaker brother" was interpreted to mean those with standards and inhibitions. Weaker and stronger were almost seen as self-designations (although I have never met someone who called himself "the weaker brother"), but in practice were the labels the leaders and promoters of CCM put on those who objected. Ironically the "weaker brother" tended to be used about those who nearly everyone thought were highly unlikely to be seduced into evil no matter what someone else did. However, the young were especially encouraged to see, and designate, themselves as "The Strong," even when their own parents and pastors often were concerned that they did not appear to be strong.

Second, there has been a strong “anti-elitist” root of CCM, a cry of “democracy,” and a call to recognize the sovereignty of the common man. The history of Western music was deeply rooted in the opinion of rulers and authorities and what they believed was best for the people. “Elites” felt responsible for keeping rule, order and standards within music because they believed music held an important place in the general rule and order of the people. This idea of an “elite” view of music survived the original American revolution of 1776, started to weaken in the “gospel revivalism” of the mid, and the "fin de Siecle" occultism of the late, 19th century, but totally collapsed in the 1960’s.

This parallels the even more important shift in the meaning of democracy in a broader sense. Democracy once was rooted in belief in “absolute truth,” where each individual was encouraged to bear witness to truth. After the 60’s, democracy lost the transcendent idea of absolutes and became a process of each individual bearing witness to their strongest desires.

The “anti-elitism” in Christian music was not about ruling bodies and groups of churches over individual churches, but was about the rights of individuals within churches to have musical freedom from the censorship of the ruling body of a church. There was a strong individualism in the triumph of CCM. Individual ‘preference’ has been at the root of CCM. Music is seen to belong more to the rights of the individual than to the realm of the corporate church.

CCM was not a church movement, but it has had very close ties to the "church growth" movement and "seeker" church movement. It is similar to “Evangelicalism” in that it is “para-church” in nature but is very loosely connected to church authority. It, as a whole, is not accountable to church authority, although a few artists do claim to respect church accountability.

In recent years, with the growth of "Praise and Worship" music (a subset of CCM designed for worship services), there has been a greater connection between CCM and churches. While CCM is a "populist" movement it is not likely that CCM operates "from the ground up." "Democracy" can be subject to manipulation and there has been enough study on "popular culture" to show that it is hardly the anti-elitist force that it pretends to be. Media "gurus" and marketing experts have considerable power over the direction of CCM.

Third, this anti-elitism is not only a mandate in order to maintain freedom between groups and individuals, but is a principle within individuals. That is, individuals are highly discouraged from making objective distinctions between their desires about musical forms and styles being considered objectively better. They are instructed to only think about “liking” or “disliking” according to (arbitrary) preferences. The interpretation was that these preferences were formed by early exposure to musical styles, but had nothing to do with objective superiority of one taste over another. Individuals were asked (demanded at times) to treat every style as essentially equal.

Note: Harold Best argues (in Music through the Eyes of Faith) that this still allows for judgments about quality within a style but not between styles. I don’t believe that argument can withstand scrutiny given the fundamental tenets of CCM, but that is beside my basic point here.

2. Implications of “Equality” & “Democracy” in Music

This leads me to my first points about musical “styles” and why CCM pursues the kind of styles it does. When the idea of “all music is created equal” is embraced we can count on certain things happening.

First, when all is considered equal people choose the easiest paths. People rarely choose difficult things for themselves needlessly. If an easy path achieves the same thing as a more difficult path the easy path is nearly always chosen. CCM maintains that the only criteria is that music must “get to the point.” This means for most people to get to the point (pleasure) as soon as possible.

Imagine if parents told their children that all kinds of food were “created equal” and that they were free to choose according to their own (arbitrary) tastes. Most children would regularly choose sweets and snack foods over “traditional” wisdom of eating habits. Children would quickly display and develop a “natural distaste” (even hatred) for more healthy foods. We can imagine Christians under the banner of “Christian liberty” crying out for equality of eating desires. Actually we don’t need to “imagine it” since it is already happening. This is only less of a problem in the area of food because of other pressures within secular culture (health professionals, and the desire for “the perfect body.”)

Second, not all music will be equally embraced when it is believed “all music is created equal.” Certain kinds of music require much less work to appreciate and give faster satisfaction than other kinds.

Third, music will become more physically oriented and separate from concerns of transcendence (holiness) when all music is considered equal. Holiness will cease to be a significant category. Fulfillment of bodily pleasures rises when they are seen as equal and just as advantageous as mental and spiritual pleasures. In fact, bodily pleasures will tend to be interpreted AS spiritual pleasures. If bodily passion is seen to equal love we can be certain that bodily passions will expand. Lust and gluttony will cease to be a meaningful category in any realm where all desires are seen as equal.

Fourth, people will consider those with the “traditional wisdom” as unnecessarily strict, “legalistic” and “elitist.” CCM has thrived on giving people the easiest path to musical pleasure and has decried the more difficult paths of older music as not only unnecessary but the remnant of the elitism of the days when authorities kept people “under their thumb” and restrained the pleasures of the common people. When it is claimed that the ruling classes maintained that this was “better” for the people in the long run the response is that this is the kind of thing elitist pompous windbags say to keep their own positions of control.

Fifth, someone who has “an agenda” will have an advantage in taking advantage of desires. People without principles are much easier to manipulate and control than people with principles. Marketing cleverness will always dominate when desires are not guided by truth and principle. People who profit from manipulating desires will never be in favor of teaching transcendent standards. Marketing does not work well with deeper and “difficult tastes.” Modesty, temperance, simplicity, self-control, love, sacrifice, quietness are very “difficult sells.” Marketing is not needed when truth is sought. Richard Weaver saw this clearly in the 1950’s in his book “Ideas have Consequences.”

Sixth, the lowest forms will have a disproportionately 'loud' voice in the public square. Lowest views will have a privileged place in a democracy that is rooted in individual desires.

Seventh, churches that embrace a CCM mentality will find it exceedingly tempting to target and cater to the lowest tastes represented in their “target market.” Churches faithful to the “CCM mentality” will also need to offer diverse services to cater to the individual preferences of its people.

Eighth, this view of music is indistinguishable from (1) self-centeredness and (2) pantheism, as is the “Christian Rocker’s Creed.” If my desires in music are "evidence of the boundless creativity of our Heavenly Father" it will be impossible to distinguish between me and God in the area of music.

But these last points must wait for another post.

What is CCM? Part One - "Now"

2006-01-13T10:56:00.000-05:00

I enjoy writing on the subject of a philosophy and theology of music and frequently this means addressing the current "triumph" of "Contemporary Christian Music" or "CCM." I hope to address why this topic is of interest and importance sometime, but for now I would like to address the identity and meaning of "CCM."

This is a difficult task and probably is impossible to do it with precision or in a way many people would be happy with. So it is with many important areas of life (e.g. - defining "freedom"). To understand the meaning of CCM one must focus on its philosophy (including its rational basis, purpose, motivation, and standards). Only secondarily can we “name” particular things (styles, artists, songs, concerts, festivals, corporations, churches, etc.)

The label "Contemporary Christian Music" was purposely championed by leaders of a movement in the late 60's through the early 80's as a less threatening, and more broadly acceptable, alternative to the original label "Christian Rock." That original label came from the music of "the Jesus People" who had come out of, and parallel to, the "flower people" and "hippies" of the 1960's social revolution. One of the main features of this group was the rock music styles they brought with them when they came to Christ. The label change to "CCM" was designed to indicate a broad range of musical styles and, more importantly, to avoid the strong negative connotations the term "Rock" had in Christian circles.

What does Contemporary Mean?
There are important indications of the meaning of CCM in its self-chosen label of "Contemporary." Remember that the people who define the terms win the debate (and vice versa). The term "contemporary" has played a strategic role in shaping and identifying the movement, not by a reference to style, but to a time period. "Contemporary" means "current," "now" or "of this age." But the term signifies much more than a time period. It is not entirely clear how certain current composers and artists are somehow not "contemporary." (We can guess the spouses and children of these "non-contemporary" people have opinions on this).

Whereas we identify other “eras” according to a labels referring to ideals (as even they often identified themselves). This label of "contemporary" tells us that it does not want to refer to ideals and standards (except the 'ideal' of 'now’ - which destroys the meaning of 'ideal').

Over the last 100 years people have been much more aware of, and interested in, "being new," and being identified as "new," than ever in history. This is related to the triumph of Darwinism's philosophy where there are no objective standards and design for reality, but only new things and current stages of mutation. This, in turn, has discouraged or destroyed the concepts of bad, good, better, best, perfection, etc (but has not destroyed egoism and elitism - one the great myths of our time is pop culture is NOT elitist, while clearly a few powerful people clearly pull the strings and rake in the money).

This doesn't mean that previous generations didn't aspire to new things. It does mean they were not nearly as impressed with something because it was new. In fact, old things were frequently deemed superior because they were old and endured the test of time. Modern people and movements have been obsessed with being "modern," "post-modern," and "contemporary."

One of the clues to the meaning of "contemporary" is that it is not very interested in seeking to achieve some standard or ideal, but to reflect, or become, “what is.” This, of course, leaves the philosophy of CCM without guiding standards. This is believed to be the strength of the movement. It does not want to be tied down to a philosophy of music. Many of us would like to argue that CCM IS guided by principles but just is ignorant of, or unwilling to admit, those principles. But that point will have to wait. What is admitted and claimed is that its “standards” are relative to time and place, but that there are no overarching purposes and standards that should guide music.

As a side issue, this brings up a criticism I have of many of the defenses of CCM that depend on history of music, and which have tended to be CCM's more persuasive arguments. CCM defenders point to changes in music in church history as supporting CCM as only the latest change just like many previous ones. What they fail to see is that, in (almost) every case in history, changes were argued to be superior because they more accurately reflected the nature of things. CCM uses these changes that were based on conviction about suitablity to accepted theology, improvement and superiority to defend its views of relativism and the assertion there is no "nature of things" to be concerned about.

The argument from church history fails due to lack of support from similar convictions through church history. The church rarely, if ever, supported relativism in music until fairly recent times. It is interesting that I have not yet found a CCM defender who has been willing to apply this same logic to the progress and change of theology through church history and who are willing to argue that theology is relative to time and place because it has changed through time.

At any rate, one of the powerful implications of the label "Contemporary" is that, if the label is accepted, it brandishes all competing musical expressions as "non-contemporary." There is something of a "power play" here that takes advantage of reigning powerful assumptions that makes it work for persuasion. It was a brilliant marketing move. To be "contemporary" means to be "with the times," "fresh," "current," "up to date," "new." All these sound compelling to most modern ears. On the other hand, to not "be contemporary" implies being "out of date," "archaic," "old fashioned," "not with the times," "not with it," etc. All these sound distasteful to modern ears. In this manner CCM has been able to co-opt the significant power of the zeitgeist ("world spirit" / "spirit of the age") for its marketability.

We might wonder why the equally valid meaning "passing away" for "contemporary" ("con" = "with" & 'temporary' = "passing away") does not impress people more than it does. This lack of impact is even more mysterious given that "contemporary" music does not even appear to aspire to time-honored, lasting forms, but rather focuses on what is "in" and "hot."

Even more mysterious is when and how so many Christians came to think of "being with the times" was such a wonderful and desirable thing, especially seeing that the one of the key themes of the New Testament is that Christians are not of "this age" (aion = "age"; "world"). That mystery will have to wait for another time.

In Sum:

The "Contemporary" in CCM indicates that in certain important respects the music is based on beliefs and practices reigning in our current time that are not justified because they are "better," but because they are reigning at the current time. In other words, CCM claims to not be based on any philosophy but only on pragmatic grounds. We might go as far as saying "the contemporary" emphasis indicates an "anti-philosophy." A positive denial that there are standards of goodness, truth and beauty that can and should guide musical form in all times and places. In other words, CCM means musical relativism. The next question is what does "musical relativism" mean for the current CCM movement that helps define it and its styles?

Concluding Note:
In defining CCM it is helpful to read the descriptions in the defenses of CCM. The two most compelling defenses of CCM that I have read are Steve Miller's The Comtemporary Christian Music Debate and Harold Best's Music Through the Eyes of Faith.

Also worth noting are a couple of critiques of CCM from within and outside the movement that point out some of problems within CCM that result from operating without a philosophy, but that are still largely supportive of the idea of CCM. These include Music at the Crossroads by Charlie Peacock and Apostles of Rock: The Splintered World of Contemporary Christian Music by Jay Howard and John Streck.

I should add that CCM hardly needs defending anymore since it is not only widely accepted among evangelical Christians (and Roman Catholics) it seems as natural as air and doubting it seems a lot like doubting that air is good for us. Surely if we deny CCM we will turn blue. The burden has been on musical conservatives to try to question the assumptions CCM has been built on. This has proven more than a little challenging since these assumptions are very deeply held even if not consciously held.

MacArthur & Piper on Manhood & Womanhood & the Gospel

2006-01-13T10:28:00.000-05:00

2 of the 13 challenges I wrote about in my post (here) about crucial issues in our time concerned gender roles. This was the important topic of discussion on Albert Mohler's radio broadcast on Thursday featuring John Piper and John MacArthur and is well worth listening to, as was their previous broadcast on the upcoming conference "Together for the Gospel." These two pastors are noteworthy leaders who have greatly challenged our generation with the truth of Scripture. Both of these men have taken strong Biblical stands on gender issues and have been key leaders in the Biblical "complementarian" position. Below are links to the two programs.

Manhood and Womanhood Discussion with Piper & MacArthur

Together for the Gospel and Church Issues Discussion with Piper & MacArthur

Pastors Over-estimate the Spirituality of their People

2006-01-12T11:41:00.000-05:00

I am frequently opposed to George Barna's proposals but not necessarily the facts he reports. I think Barna is right (barna.org) when he indicates that Pastors tend to over-estimate the spiritual commitment of their people. A recent Barna survey (here) showed that Pastors rate the commitments of their people dramatically (embarrassingly) higher than the people rate themselves.

The root of the misperception comes from the fact that Pastors tend to rate mere church attendance and casual interest as far more spiritually significant than they really are. Pastors as "church leaders" tend to be concerned too much about keeping the "programs of the church" running rather than their real business of shepherding souls. Therefore if people are making the programs look "heathy" they wrongly conclude that the people in them must be spiritually healthy.

This reminds me of issues that have been apparent to and stirring in me for quite some time. Issues that my mentor, the late Dr. Rembert Carter, continually sought to drive into me. Unfortunately it still has not totally sunk in. I hope to keep working on it.

First, pastors must get more deeply involved with people and ask spiritually penetrating questions about their lives and faith. It also should encourage pastors to get into the homes of the people. The ministry of Richard Baxter is a rebuke to us. Baxter visited and personally "catechized" every family in his church every year (and their were literally hundreds of them!). The question is how to make time for such an endeavor. For me this signifies the importance of Wednesday evening prayer meeting when I have the opportunity to pray one on one with individual men in our church. It is much easier to do this when people are willing to be open and when they come to more than one service. Of course this may also be when it is less needed!

Second, home life should be a regular focus of attention of pastors and churches. What people are in their families and family relationships is much more indicative of what they truly are then what they may seem to be on Sunday morning.

Third, pastors need to preach in such a way to not only stimulate interest and agreement, but to, more importantly, bring conviction. The problem is that conviction can be painful, both to the people and the pastor. Hurting people almost always strike back at the one they perceive is causing the hurt. Pastors need the love and the courage to absorb this pain in order to be true doctors of souls.

Caveat on Piper's View of Glory

2006-01-10T14:10:00.000-05:00

As much as I admire John Piper I believe he has his weaknesses. I fear that some of Piper's followers may be (already are?) tempted to unwittingly substitute joy for God in certain respects. While it is true that joy is in God, it is not true that joy IS God. Piper does put a very strong emphasis on the sharp edges of truth, suffering, hard work, patience and service as vital aspects of finding "joy" in God, but his call for "hedonism" always comes through strongly. The problem is that people are always tempted to neglect harder edges and just hear a call for joy as justification for a more superficial hedonism. I do wonder whether Piper might inadvertantly stimulate unrealistic expectations of current experiences of joy that can lead people to seek joy in inappropriate ways.

There is a movement among those passionate about CCM and "Praise and Worship Music" who seek to reform CCM & P&W with Piper's theology. I am grateful for whatever theological reformation can be brought to the lyrics of CCM, but that is not enough reform since there are dangers inherent in the philosophy of music itself. Piper does not address this issue, but I believe those who admire his teaching need to address it.

Rock music has been promoted from its inception as a religion that replaces Christian orthodoxy and its dogma of transcendence, the future and patience. Lyrics have always been a secondary concern to Rock (in its many forms). Lyrics rest in the shadow of an emphasis on physical, visceral, sensation and passionate experience. Like specific doctrines of "sects" within a wider religion, words are not unimportant to Rock, but they do pale and become trivialized in comparison to the driving existential and experiential philosophy of the music itself.

I am not convinced Piper's followers seeking to reform CCM have adequately shone the light of his God-centered, Christ-exalting, theology on the root philosophy of the music itself. It betrays an serious inconsistency to insist that the term "Glory of God" is objective when speaking in theological and moral terms, but the term "Glory of God" is subjective, even self-centered, when applied to aesthetic experiences. The Bible does not make this kind of distinction, but uses "Glory" objectively when refering both to moral and aesthetic categories. The Bible reveals God is just as "high and lifted up" aesthetically as morally. In neither sense are we justified in making the root meaning of "God's Glory" as "we feel high and lifted up." Our feeling must be subject to an objective sense or we are no different than the radical post-modern, self-centered, relativists.
Promises of joy and "pleasure"are highly attractive, and clearly important in Scripture, but (I hope) Piper means something different than the buzz that "passionate" music generates. People are so bored in our entertainment saturated world that entertainment values are permeating every part of life. This superficial hedonism is too often considered a quest for "joy."

Unfortunately Piper has not written clearly on a theology of aesthetics and music. This might be considered excusable since no one can address every issue of a given era. But to miss the overwhelming importance given to "upbeat music" and Rock's revolt against objective, rational based religion misses one of the most important issues of our time. Even Friedrich Nietzsche, in a sense the 'father' of our post-modern times, insisted that a new 'liberated' 'dionysian' view of music was a critically important issue in subduing the Christian influence of the past.

A few years ago, when I had the great priviledge of meeting him, I asked Piper what his view of music was. His quick response was essentially "all things to all people to win some." On the other hand, I have heard Piper speak about CCM in ways that shows he is a little uneasy about at least some things. He has commented on how "incrediblly loud" it tends to be and how the crowd gyrates around. It doesn't seem evident that he has thought through why CCM needs to be so loud. There are philosophical (and "theological") reasons for it that can and should be evaluated.

Piper and his followers need to work out a theology of aesthetics to apply his core views to the realms of art and culture and overall interaction with creation. We need a deeper philosophy of music than justifying the hedonism of Rock music with "good theology." We need to examine what is driving and shaping the music itself and not fall into a Gnostic notion that God is disinterested in physical realities and only cares about "our hearts" so that we can (must?) place ourselves as the center of our standards of music and art.

Prayer and God's Glory - John Piper's Cancer

2006-01-10T09:54:00.000-05:00

John Piper reported to his church last week that he has been diagnosed with prostrate cancer. The plan is for surgery in February to remove the prostrate. As we might have expected his interpretation and response looks to be God-exalting and full of a sense of the victory of God in Christ.

Piper's ministry has been extremely valuable to me and to many others. His God-centered theology and excellent spirit has endeared him to us. His overarching theme "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him" has opened many eyes to aspects of the glory of God we had not seen before, at least not as clearly and as powerfully presented. His theology and teaching resonate with confidence in God. He weds deep theological truth with rich piety and emotional response in ways few have been able to do. His obvious industriousness and creativity humble and challenge all of us in the pastorate to give all the strength we have into our ministries.

His book "Desiring God" is his seminal work and is very helpful, but his books "The Pleasures of God" and "Let the Nations Be Glad" should be put in consideration as Christian classics.

Improve Quality of Life: Cut Down on Sugar Intake

2006-01-09T09:12:00.000-05:00

In my last post I mentioned rising health problems due to poor diets. Today a NY Times article features what NYC health officials are calling an 'epidemic' claiming that more than 1 in 8 people in New York have diabetes.

It is not far fetched to believe that spiritual and physical problems can be related to one another. It is entirely plausible that we eat so poorly because we have so little health in our souls that satisfies and sustains us. Having needs not met by soul nourishment we run to the 'frig for a quick fix rather than being nurished with the substance of God's Word and Truth.

NY Times Quote of the Day:
"I will go out on a limb and say 20 years from now people will look back and say: 'What were they thinking? They're in the middle of an epidemic and kids are watching 20,000 hours of commercials for junk food.'"DR. THOMAS R. FRIEDEN, New York City health commissioner, on diabetes.

Improve Your Quality of Life: Nourish Your Soul

2006-01-07T18:56:00.000-05:00

Government and various health agencies are very concerned about the health of Americans. Many people are not nourishing their bodies with wholesome food but are consuming too much junk food. The result is not only numerous health problems, but also lack of activity that people should not only be able to do fairly easily, but even enjoy doing. Poor diets and lack of health no doubt springs from a desire to "be happy" but because it is mis-guided about the nature of reality (and the human body) this desire produces the opposite of its intended consequence.

This is true of souls also. Like our bodies, our souls need to be nourished to be healthy, strong, energetic and vibrant. When our souls are malnourished we feel sluggish and tired and don’t even try to engage in activities that should be normal for us and even give us pleasure.

Spiritual exercise and ministry are not only “commands” for a Christian but the natural outlet of energy given us in the nourishment of our soul on God’s Word.

Here are some tips for preparing to nourish your soul in 2006.

1· Help your appetite grow by refusing spiritual junk food.
It is striking how little hunger some people have for the Word of God. It is striking because humans need regular, heavy helpings of spiritual nourishment that God’s Word alone provides. If we are not hungry for God’s Word we should consider what is substituting for God’s Word. It could be overt sin, or “good things” like physical food, friends, work, or entertainment. Many Christians only think about their entertainment choices in regard to evil content and temptation.
We would do well to consider how entertainment can clog the soul and dampen spiritual desire with things that may not be overtly wrong but do damage by what they replace. These substitute for true spiritual food in two ways. They can rob us of time and they can rob us of appetite. Spiritual candy may not be “wrong,” but like chocolate it is addictive and often replaces good eating habits. One issue is that like “junk food” it is difficult to only eat “a little.” People that can only eat “a little” tend to not desire it at all.

2· Make a plan for a regular time and a routine for spiritual meals.
We are creatures of habit. The only question is whether our habits will be good or bad. The wise person faces this and makes plans for establishing good ones. Consistent time in God's Word does not happen by chance. It requires thoughtful preparation and discipline of mind and body. Determine a time that you will meet with God each day. The wisdom of the ages tells us that morning is the best time and few have disproved this wisdom.

3· Make a systematic plan of study.
A haphazard approach doesn't work at increasing virtue. Spontaneity is fruit of organized, systematic and disciplined study. Get a Bible reading schedule, select a Bible book, or get a devotional book to study. Don't wait for a "spur of the moment" idea. Uncertainty contributes to putting it off entirely.

4· Make a habit through immediate consistency.
The key to creating habits is strict faithfulness the first month or two. If you stick to a routine for 6 weeks it will become much easier afterward (although never "automatic"). You can not leave it to feelings and convenience since these only come after you have a habit and "a taste." It is important not to miss days in that initial period of "training" your mind and body to establish a habit.

Most people only do what they “feel like” doing or what they have to do. Time with God is rarely seen in one of these categories. So you will have to “force yourself” to keep going at first. Remember the promises are for great reward even if you can’t feel them yet!

You must deny the heresy that desires and feelings are sacred and that it is wrong to resist or to change them. You must also deny the false teaching that God’s grace does not require discipline. Discipline itself should be a product of God’s grace.

Recommended Resources
· Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life by Donald Whitney.
· When I Don't Desire God by John Piper.

Challenges of 2006 and Beyond

2006-01-06T17:39:00.000-05:00

As we pass the mile marker of a new year it is helpful to pause and consider where we are so that we can better plan for getting to our destination. We need an accurate understanding of our times so that we can better face the challenges ahead of us. In this post I identify 13 key issues that the church must face and answer in our times.

These trends are not studied and “decided on” by people in our time, but are simply and naturally absorbed just by living in our world. It is difficult NOT to be sucked into these beliefs and practices (see especially David Well's books: "No Place for Truth"; "God in the Wasteland"; "Losing our Virtue" and "Above All Eartly Powers").

The danger of not considering the cultural condition we live in and its underlying commitments is that these already do influence us and will influence the way we interpret Scripture if we do not consider if they are Biblical. Indeed this has already been happening as the evangelical church has been adopting and adapting many of the key features of our times in a quest to be relevant.

1. “Post-Modern” Relativism
The key characteristics of our time have been labeled “post-modern,” indicating a period called “modernism” has developed into something new. What has changed?

a. Modernism
Modernism was a quest to get rid of authority and base everything on “reason” and not on “religious belief” and the Bible. Science and technology promised to be a new law and redeemer that would replace the authority of the Bible. At first there was an optimism that Science would solve serious problems. When it became evident that many problems actually became worse and that science was not inherently good, “modernism” sought to face despair with “courage.” The one “virtue” of modernism was that it was serious.

b. Post-Modernism
Post-modernism is much less confident in “universal reason.” People no longer believe “arguments” will make any difference because all is relative to individual “perspective.” There is no universal truth that all can agree on so people have given up seeking it. Now people are supposed to respect each other by simply recognizing everyone sees things differently. Everything has been reduced to “personal taste.” This is harder to accept when other people’s “truth” involves stealing and murder.

Post-modernism seems to more refer to a popular movement than modernism did, but it does not seem to have nearly the same seriousness as previous generations. This makes sense due to its relativism. Relativism makes it difficult to take any point of view very seriously. Many people are content to live for today, in pleasurable moments, without thinking very much at all about the “big questions.” It doesn’t (seem to) upset people very much that they have no answers about eternity and God. They are much more concerned about getting and using the latest video and sound equipment.

2. Definition of Freedom
Freedom has come to mean being free from others – from their expectations, needs, and feelings. If anyone restricts you in any way it is seen as opposing “freedom.” This definition is incompatible with committed relationships of family, church and community. Of course people still want relationships with those who give to them, but we are increasing unwilling to pay the price of sacrificing some of our own “freedom” to get this. People will always restrict us and limit our freedom if this is what freedom means.

3. Self-Centeredness
Self-Centeredness is nothing new, it is part of the sin nature. What might be new is that it is now not only justified but is even encouraged, sometimes even demanded, by the culture. There are very few inhibitors to self-centeredness now. The signs of this are numerous. I will just mention a couple.

a. Sacredness of Personal Desire/Choice
It is believed that choice is a good that justifies itself. It is believed that if people just had “their choice” they would be happier and more moral. This is illustrated in the “pro-choice” movement that believes that if only every child were “wanted” the world would be a better place. This same belief runs through many issues in our culture. It is not true however. People are not generally happier when they get what “they want” and they definitely are not more loving and moral when they get what they want. Instead they routinely become less satisfied and more demanding.

b. Increasing Informality & Loss of Reverence
Dress, speech and manners are increasingly informal as an expression of the belief that there is nothing more sacred than “self.” At one level this is just “a learned habit” and “a taste.” But it comes from belief that the self should not show deference to something that makes demands and limits personal expression. Formal expressions are unpopular because they imply standards and a sacredness outside of personal comfort.

4. “Private Truth”
People think of themselves as unique and their problems as unique. Therefore they want personalized solutions. This includes wanting new and updated “word from God.”

“Private” truth is “truth” that makes one feel good about oneself. Feeling good would not be a problem except that it is frequently divorced from actually being good and other people thinking it is also good for them (especially family and other committed relationships) and divorced from what God’s Word says is truth.

5. Consumerism
There is a strong practice and unstated belief that the things we buy define us and “save us.” Not in the sense of saving us eternally from sin, but save us from appearing old and outdated and toward presenting a positive image. Buying is a way of positioning oneself in society and getting the respect of others.

6. Triumph of Entertainment
Entertainment plays a central role in our times. It is impossible to quantify the role of music, TV, movies and sports in our time but it is obvious that the culture has been sucked into an entertainment vortex that will not let people go.

Entertainment has not only had a direct affect on people. It has put pressure on everything to be entertaining. Restaurants, schools, colleges, and churches are now expected to keep up with expectations raised by entertainment. Just listening to the “sales pitches” of colleges and churches indicates how they have been influenced by the values of entertainment (ease, "fun", comfort, non-threatening). There still is the obligatory line “you’ll learn a lot too,” but it is clear where the main focus is.

7. Spiritual Sloth
Sloth is the logical outcome of “relativism.” If everything is relative to our choices we inevitably will tend to choose “easy gods.” Why study, pray and practice hard when you are promised the same value by doing nothing?

8. Lack of Commitment
Again, lack of commitment is a natural outcome of relativism. It should be noted that people do still show remarkable commitment to certain kinds of things – but not to things that fulfill “responsibilities” and that bless others.

9. Spirituality without Religion
A “spirituality” continues to grow that is rooted in “passionate” feelings and generated through drama and music. It may or may not assume doctrine but is not driven by doctrine in practice. It focuses on worship times and “experiences” where it liberates from the boredom of “ordinary life.” This is in contrast to the orthodox and historic Protestant emphasis on the Word and integral belonging and commitment to a local church.

10. Unbridled Sexuality
Our generation is encountering sexual temptation and liberation surpassing previous generations. Private entertainment and the internet have been overwhelming temptations. Reports are that the heaviest demand for pornographic sites is from 3 to 5 pm when many children are home without parents. Sexual addictions are forming very young. But it is not only the young, but the whole culture is giving way to perverse sexuality. The degree of innuendo and open sexuality has been steadily and drastically increasing. What was once obscene has now become accepted as part of the “mainstream,” while the “edges” strive to be more and more radical.

11. Gender Confusion
Women and men are no longer considered to have separate roles and responsibilities. It is up to everyone to define these for themselves. This gender confusion extends from a desire to put “freedom” and “choice” as the highest priorities. If beliefs about behavior and roles for male or female “restrict” that freedom it is believed that people must cast off those restrictions and be whatever they want to be.

12. Passive Men and Depressed Women
The women’s liberation movement may have liberated some women in some respects, but the far greater result has been the liberation of men from viewing themselves as responsible for loving and caring for others. The result has been generations of men who don’t care about much of anything except making money, playing, and sitting back and watching TV. The pressure has been increasing on women to be everything.

13. Future of CCM
Probably the most widespread feature of Christianity in our time has been the advent and “triumph” of Contemporary Christian Music. It has been the feature of Christian practice most often paraded before the world and has been purposely touted as the key bridge from the secular world to the church. It was hoped that CCM would communicate to unbelievers that the church is “up to date,” “alive,” “passionate” and definitely NOT boring.

The success of CCM has been unparalleled in terms of “market share” and generation of enormous income. Secular mega-corporations have been buying up CCM labels to cash in on this enterprise.

The issue of CCM is not primarily about music. It is about a philosophy of life and about what worship is and what attitudes and practices best promote godliness.

The problem has been that CCM has shown no obvious positive impact on the wider culture. In fact, CCM may actually have contributed to the “normalization” of secular rock music by using the same philosophy of music as secular rock and by the most influential CCM artists swooning about how much they love secular rock music. The alcohol addictions and sexual and marital problems within CCM are well documented as are the “cut throat” and elitist values of the industry as a whole. Yet at the same time CCM has managed to keep the scandals under enough control to keep a generally respectable image among Christians.

The secular world has not been very impressed with CCM although the press seems amused by it. The world is still able to spot Christian lyrics and tries to avoid them. “Rockers” like being bad and are not thrilled that CCM tends to make them “status quo.” The technique of “sneeking in” the gospel has generally proved ineffective.

The most obvious impact of CCM has been in the way it has changed churches. CCM has been most effectively used to draw people out of more conservative churches and into more “exciting” churches. CCM has changed what people look for in churches and has changed the way churches “promote themselves.”

CCM seems to be more frequently a bridge from the church to the world than vice versa. Christians used to be embarrassed to admit they liked secular rock. This is less and less common now as Christians develop a taste for the worst music in history simply by going to church. CCM has at least stated desire to be on "the cuttting edge," but I do not believe it is known for much success in this. This prospect seems very unlikely given one of the key the principles on which CCM is founded, that of taking what the world already loves and co-opting it for "Christian purposes." I listen to so little contemporary music that it all basically sounds the same to me. I marvel when I hear someone talk about how innovative a new album is. My own tastes are formed to not need "the beat" to keep me interested in and excited by music.

Novelty has allowed CCM to be successful as a business, but novelty is not a principle that can sustain orthodoxy and godly practice. The problem is that CCM will have to continue with novelty to sustain itself as a mega-business or risk becoming “old” which is one of the few heresies left in our world.

The big question to me is where does CCM go from here? How long can it keep the current status quo? What other taboos can it break and still be considered “Christian” as it has to so many "conservative" Christians these past 2 decades? What continued impact will all this have on the church?

There are individuals and groups within CCM who have been seeking to reform CCM from within, but it is not yet evident that this can be effective. The climb is steep and, I believe, the underlying philosophy of CCM has to be abandoned for any true reformation to transpire.

Pattison's Insight on Music 20 Years Later

2006-01-06T17:25:00.000-05:00

20 years ago 2 books were written (actual publishing dates were 1987) that took diametrically opposed points of view about music. The two books I am thinking of were Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” and Robert Pattison’s “The Triumph of Vulgarity.”

Bloom critically blamed the rise of rock music for the decline and fall of classical studies and the life of the mind during his tenure as university professor. The interesting thing about the two books was that they agree about nearly every point about Rock music except the conclusion. What Bloom lamented Pattison rejoiced in. Pattison considered all of Bloom’s “high minded” scholarship essentially worthless to the modern person. Yes, its true that disciplined, transcendent-based thinking has (largely) died, but Pattison says that we do not need to mourn the loss, but should celebrate it.

It doesn’t take much insight to see that, even though Bloom’s got the most attention back in the late 80’s, it was Pattison’s book that represented the majority and (then and subsequently) triumphant position. What Pattison described was not only about secular culture but was also a prophecy about the church. Here are two quotations from Pattison’s book about Rock’s influence on religion:

….Which is not to say that rock is not a threat to organized religion. It is, but not in the crude sense of demanding a choice between Baal and Jehovah. Rock knocks the props out from under religion, first, by shifting the locus of faith from God to self, and secondly, by depriving sects and churches of their claim to exclusive revelation. By forcing churches to compete on the basis of their ability to titillate the instincts of their worshippers, vulgar pantheism compels the champions of organized religions to abandon their pretension to superior truth and thus turns them into entrepreneurs of emotional stimulation. Once God becomes a commodity for self-gratification, his fortunes depend on the vagaries of the emotional marketplace, and his claim to command allegiance on the basis of omnipotence or omniscience vanishes in a blaze of solipsism as his priests and shamans pander to the feeling, not the faith, of their customers.” (Robert Pattison, Triumph of Vulgarity, p. 186)

…But rock is useless to teach any transcendent value. The instigators of these projects merely promote the pagan rites they hope to co-opt. Rock’s electricity as much as its pantheist heritage gives the lie to whatever enlightened propaganda may be foisted on it. The rocker is simultaneously alone with himself and at one with the universe. No intermediate state of transcendence such as Christianity or schoolbook morality preaches is likely to appeal to him. He takes his pantheism neat. (Robert Pattison, The Triumph of Vulgarity, p. 137)

The typical evangelical response to these quotations is first, “What do we care what a pagan like Pattison says about the church and religion?” and second, “We do not appeal to ‘self’ or ‘pander to the feeling, not the faith of… customers.’”

In response to the first objection, I believe Pattison shows a deeper understanding of how philosophy of life and music interact than many Christians in our time. We should care because we can learn from even pagans who have good understanding of certain matters. This is especially relevant since many Christians are unwittingly following the program Pattison outlines in his book, even though they may not have read his book.

The second objection is more difficult since there has been no small protest that churches are still preaching what the church has always preached in content, but has only exchanged neutral forms and styles. But this protest misses Pattison’s point and in fact seems to succumb to it.

Pattison recognized there are different “sects” within the religion of Rock – each with it own set of lyrics – some more thoughtful than others. His point was that the overarching religion of Rock holds sovereignty over and relativizes these sects and binds them together as only one religion – that Rock is the true universal religion that “brings us to God” and the “sects” are only personalized lanes on this universal path.

Again, I believe Pattison had more insight into us than we have about our selves. At least I sense this in my own ministry. I frequently feel the pull and tension of people who are relatively unmoved and bored by the doctrine they say they believe and their desire for emotional experiences generated through pop music. I have had few critics tell me they wish our church was clearer on doctrine and had more emphasis Biblical teaching, though we many regular members who do delight in and are content in sound Biblical teaching. I have encountered many who want more upbeat services and a more informal atmosphere to help people feel more like themselves. We are routinely told, from a variety of sources, that a church cannot grow by appealing to faith and that growth can only come from appealing to the sensibilities of modern people. I fear for a generation of church attenders that believes that pop music gives them access to God - or gives access to what gives access to God.

The Internet and False Community

2005-11-04T18:03:00.000-05:00

A good place to start with a “web log” is facing the realities of the dangers of the internet and its propensity toward pseudo-communication and pseudo-community. In a sense the internet can be considered as a neutral tool to be used for good or evil. However, it would be naïve to miss that internet communication encourages, or at least is very susceptible to, the seductive powers of communication vice because of its anonymity and promotion of individual control.

I fear falling into the pseudo-community of the internet and believing it to be more than what God knows it to be. I don’t mean to disregard the good things that can be accomplished on the internet. We should be appreciative of its strengths, but without being gullible about its weaknesses.

As a Pastor in a “high tech” world ministering among “high tech” people, and especially “high tech” young people, I am regularly made aware of the seductive nature of the internet towards spoiling communication. Surely the internet is a powerful tool, but it seems to be especially powerful as a hindrance to God’s design for human community.

First, there is corruption through obvious false communication like pornography (false intimacy), lying, slander, deception, and the like. It is cheaper than ever to publish deception that millions of people can read and believe. Reports of the number of people logging on to pornographic sites are staggering and frightening, especially when we consider that many of these are people are “well meaning” who historically would not have risked public shame by less anonymous means. Reports indicate that a high percentage of responses to “personal ads” are men who are already married, but who are seeking a secret fantasy life. This seems to be reflected in internet “chatting” also. Reports are flowing of significant numbers of seductions transpiring over the internet.

Clearly, the anonymity of internet access is highly appealing to “the flesh” and sinful appetites. The internet is giving substantial proof to the doctrine of “total depravity” and the truth that we would be much worse than we are if allowed to do what we really want without fear of being caught. It is also revealing that the claim that man is “good at heart” is a bold-faced lie. I remember laughing out loud about 13 years ago when I heard a Christian speaker say “yes, there is pornography on the internet, but only a few will be clever enough to find it.”

These more obvious sins are clearly a major issue that anyone with internet access must come to grips with. Spouses and parents must recognize the inherent dangers of the internet and implement careful preventative measures.

As important as these matters are our concern must also regard more subtle ways that the internet corrupts human community and communication.

The amount of time that the internet tempts us to spend must also be taken with all seriousness. Added to this concern should be consideration of the kind of communication and communication habits the internet tends to encourage, even at its best, along with the communication it tends to replace and diminish..

When I refer to the “kind of communication it tends to encourage” I’m not referring to inherently sinful communication, but to the seductive pull to continue in self-centered patterns of communication in only involving ourselves in the communication we prefer to be involved in with ourselves as masters of the communication process.

Face to face (“Real life”?) communication frequently requires us to handle the “problem” (opportunity?) of real people and the potential of offending and being offended while still be required to maintain civil relationships. On the internet we can “surf” from one conversation to another without “be offensive” or considered unsociable. We can pick and choose conversations at will, or totally disregard any response at all if we prefer. We can begin to feel like “masters” of our own universe and might even hide from consciousness the possibility that our soul may indeed be the only one in “our universe.”

It may be easy to overlook the fact that time we spend on the internet excludes time we could, or should, be conversing with our spouse, children, brother, neighbor, etc. Parents report to us that their children would stay on the internet chatting with friends all evening long if they were allowed to, and apparently many know some who ARE allowed to. This is not only a problem with young people, but is fairly common among adults also (though I expect much less prevalent among the senior generations).

I believe there are real costs to this rising self-centeredness in communication that need to addressed and guarded against.

Everyone, and especially Christians and Christian parents, needs to especially consider both of these kinds of problems with false communication on the internet. I hope to return to this topic and reflect on it in more detail.

First Post - Me about Christ

2005-10-27T20:30:00.000-04:00

I hope to use this web-log as an opportunity to reflect on and promote the glory of God as manifested in "the face" of Jesus Christ (2Cor 4:6) and to help bring "every thought captive" to Him.

I have been purchased for the glory of God by the life and death of Jesus Christ through faith and I desire to use all my heart, soul, mind and strength for God and His exalted purpose.

I was born in 1962 and was raised in a strong Christian home. I was brought to faith in Christ at age 7 when I realized my sin and my unworthiness to face God and the sobering fact that I would face eternal punishment for being a rebel guilty of "cosmic treason" if I faced God on my own merit. I heard the good news that Jesus Christ had won the victory over sin and death through his life and death for all who trust in Him. I have assurance of salvation based on continuing sense of my need for Christ and continuing conviction of Christ's sufficiency and supremacy over all things.

I am married and have four children (2 boys and 2 girls). I serve Christ as a Pastor of a small independent baptist church in PA and also administrate our church run Christian School.

I seek to be an avid reader and especially enjoy works of theological depth and substance. I am committed to "the doctrines of grace" and a God-centered, Christ-exalting theology. I love to read the great historical works of Christian theology including the protestant reformers and puritans. Some of my favorite contemporary authors include Ian Murray, JI Packer, John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Jerry Bridges, and many more.

I am currently reading some of the works of John Bunyan (specifically his "Grace Abounding to the Least of Sinners" and "A Treatise on the Fear of God") for personal edification as well as in preparation for sermons and two special messages on Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" as part of our church's (and children's group) annual focus on Christian heroes of the past the last week of October (and Reformation day).

I am committed to in-depth teaching and preaching of Scripture along with prayer and personal godliness and love for people as the key factors for fulfilling my calling as Pastor of a local church.

I seek to resist much of the "modernizing" and "postmodernizing" pressures put on churches in our time. However I recognize the complexity of ideas and practices extant and I also acknowledge my own roots are in American contemporary culture and I see (imperfectly, I'm sure) the impact of this culture on my life and attitudes. I seek to keep informed about what is happening in "evangelicalism" and in church growth strategy, but I confess I can only tolerate small and periodic doses because the emphases of much of the "church growth" and "seeker sensitive" movements tend to deeply discourage me from keeping confidence in the Word of God as sufficient to do the work of God. I know I am not (and never will be) clever or "cool" enough to be an "effective" leader of a church that catches a wave of some contemporary fad.