We're going with a bit of a change-up this time around. I just returned from the Brethren National Conference and it was a good time of fellowship, training, worship, and networking. One of the newer advancements that our denomination is pursuing is a celebration of our collective artistic gifts. We're calling it Story & Song. Artwork was displayed in our large gathering room and new songs were taught and sung. More will come of this no doubt, but I was surprised at the excellent quality of what was produced. I probably shouldn't have been. It's great to see artists honoring God with their gifts.
Well, it's been a few weeks and I can't even get around to posting on a Monday. But I did want to move this little series along. Of all the controversial songs in CCM's history, "Cartoons" by Chris Rice may be one of the most interesting.
It was criticized for being anti-worship, misusing the Lord's name, and being borderline obscene (it references Beavis and Butthead!). It was also a chart-topper and one of Rice's most popular songs in a career that contained a lot of radio hits. Ultimately, I think it proves that many Christians don't get satire and can't laugh at themselves very easily. Too many of us take things like this too seriously. Rice's music resume reflects an incredibly profound heart for God and uniquely humble appraoch to worship. Why go crazy over a hidden track of a song he wrote for a youth group event? I could conjure up more thoughts and arguments in his defense, but this article does it for me: https://www.crosswalk.com/culture/music/chris-rice-and-the-great-cartoons-controversy-1383756.html. Meanwhile, let's allow ourselves a little fun, ok?
Over the past several months, the worship song Reckless Love has climbed to the top of the charts and become a staple in the sets of many contemporary worship services. The questions, criticisms, and controversy wasn't "manufactured" unnecessarily. People questioned whether the idea of God being reckless was a biblical idea. That's a legitimate question to ask on it's face. Analyzing the lyrics of the songs we sing is not a bad thing or a waste of time. The reason I'm featuring it in this ongoing series of "manufactured controversies" is that the answers were there the whole time. Relevant Magazine did a good job of running through the various issues of controversy and theology. The song itself defines it's meaning. Cory Asbury, the musician who penned this song, also gave a thoughtful and biblically-based explanation of the idea behind the song. I mean, why not go to the source if you have a problem with it?
For some personal context here, I was triggered a bit by a blog that was shared on my Facebook timeline regarding this song. I can no longer find it, but it was authored by someone taking their task way too seriously (probably a lot like myself). It ended up using 800-1,000 words dissecting the song and the related biblical issues...all to conclude that the song was ok and it's good to take into consideration how an author/musician defines words and concepts. And in my mind I was like, "why?". Let's let art be art and give some creative license to faithful artists. I know that opens up for the possibility of heresy popping up. But the thing about our modern world is, we got plenty of heresy hunters that will sound the alarm plenty early before it's endangering the Church. Let's give more freedom to our creatives and let them (biblically) expand our imaginations about who God is and what He's done and doing for us.
"Joy to the World" is a song full of bad theology!!!
Or so I was told.
I will admit, this one is a bit of a stretch and may only pertain to my experience. I grew up in a conservative non-denominational Christian church that embraced Dispensationalism. Specifically the idea that Christ wouBut it wasn't at church where I was warned about this popular Christian hymn. It was actually in college.
I went to a small Christian college (and seminary) that similarly held to Dispensationalism. And while there have been many developments in this particular theological system, there were enough "old-school" traditionalists still around in the early 2000's who more than once criticized this song.
The charges against were that Isaac Watts was an a-millenialist, or was it post-millenialist? I honestly don't remember. But you could read the lyrics and discover his erroneous theology in this beloved Christmas hymn. See one strong tenant of Dispensatoinalism is the premillenialism understanding that Christ will reign on earth for (a literal?) 1000 years before God establishes the final new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21-22. And any suggestion that the world would get better and better until Christ returned, or that he's reigning as King now - well that was close to heresy.
You can google those alternative millennial views and the various debates around them. What you will discover is that there are a lot of differing viewpoints each claiming significant biblical evidence for their view. And as a Progressive Dispensationalist, I see those old anti-Joy arguments to be needlessly nitpicky.
I see this song as anticipating Christ's second coming and describing the glory of His Kingdom as the Scripture that inspired it - Psalm 98 - does. The one thing about it is, somehow we've married it to the Christmas season when it is clearly pointing to the end times.
Again, maybe it's just me, but I've come to resolve this manufactured controversy for myself.
The 80's and 90's were curious times in the Christian music world. Legitimate stars were being made. Some were even gaining larger audiences, beyond just the Church. Yet, for those first mega-stars of the CCM world, any hint of "going secular" was met with automatic backlash. One of those trailblazers was the queen of CCM, Amy Grant. Looking back, it's apparent her albums were less and less overtly Christian but it was "Heart in Motion" that was her pop music breakthrough. And it was the the #1 single "Baby Baby" that catapulted her to superstardom and put a target on her back for some.
This song made her the first Christian artist to record number one hit on the US pop charts. But not only did she get flack for selling out to the world, her video received criticism because it showed her interacting with a guy who wasn't her husband. Despite her assertions that her newborn was the inspiration for the song, some Christians tuned her out and dismissed the idea that a Christian could make quality 'worldly' music without morally compromising. I personally think she handled herself pretty well through it all. Yes, her personal story would include a divorce that brought out a lot of critics. And while some of these criticisms might be justifiable, for me, this is all about what happens when we put our Christian heroes on pedestals and expect perfection. She might be a cautionary-tale, but she's definitely a trail-blazer and an artist who's established an excellent career - both in the secular and sacred music realms.
Several years ago, as an pastoral intern at my home church, I was witness to a brief encounter after a worship service that really made me cringe. Our church music was a "blended" style mixing contemporary songs with traditional hymns. As part of the worship set, we sang "Create in Me A Clean Heart" which is based word for word on Psalm 51. I was near the stage at the end of the service when I noticed an older lady in our church approach the worship leader and associate pastor. She told him she objected to that song because it mentioned "taking the Holy Spirit" from the author/singing audience. That was just incorrect theology and we should not have sung it. Now the leader graciously received her input and agreed with her theologically. As I remember it, he also mentioned that we'd sung that a few months prior and had made comments of qualification before singing it then (I do remember this instance and it was clear and well-done). He apologized for not repeating that step this time and promised to do so in the future. Crisis averted. On the one hand, it's good that this person was thinking critically about her worship. But at the same time, I'm cringing watching that go on precisely because of the context. Our church was staunchly theologically conservative with clear statements about their beliefs about Holy Spirit written in it's constitution. And this pastor had previously made a recent extra effort to clearly explain the nuances of our NT position in Christ vs. the OT differences - that affect seven words of a beautiful song about confession and repentance. Side note, how many other worship songs are there about confession and repentance?
Again, I'm all for discernment and thinking through what we're singing in worship. I don't want to dismiss the idea that our worship should be theologically sound. I'm very much for that. Maybe it's the effect of modernity on our society or maybe it's a ripple effect of the Church's own "Worship Wars" over the past 30 years but I've observed a lot of manufactured controversy over various modern and traditional church music. This case wasn't "manufactured" exactly, but over the next month or so I'll be featuring cases where some within Christendom have stirred up controversy needlessly. They will run the spectrum of very recent to very old. But all will be cases where - in my opinion - some people are "straining gnats while swallowing camels". And if you have some examples you can think of, feel free to leave them in the comments.
Going with an older traditional hymn this week in memory of Gordon Rhodes, a 96 year old WWII veteran who recently passed away. I officiated his funeral over the weekend and it was truly an honor to pay tribute to a man who wasn't just a war hero but also a great man of faith.
There were many songs included in the service, but this week's selection wasn't actually one of them. It's a personal choice of a song that always reminds me of our victory over death because of Christ.
This version is the classic version. I'll also always remember this song for the sped up A Capella version my Greek prof led us in occasionally at the beginning of class.
