Thoughts on America as a “Christian” Nation

Hello Everyone,

This morning I was going about my normal routine involving the consumption of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a brief scan of the facebook feeds when I saw a youtube link someone had posted. By the status that contained the link, I knew it was something political, so I clicked it to find out. Apparently, President Obama made a recent trip to Turkey and participated in what appeared to be a town hall type meeting with some Turkish official. The title of the video is “Obama In Turkey “We Do Not Consider Ourselves A Christian Nation”. The video has had more than 20,000 views in the almost two days it has been posted and most of the comments contain either exclamation points, capitalized letters, profanity, or all three. There are supposed Christians expressing their fear that the final “nail in the coffin” is coming for “Christian America” and there are liberals slinging all sorts of shots at what they consider to be the mass idiocy that is the evangelical right.

This issue of America’s inherent Christianity (or the increasing loss of it) is a big issue for both conservative Christians and liberals in our day. But is America inherently Christian? Conservatives need to ensure that their history is right lest they create an entire ideology that is based on historical fallacies. As Christians, we not only have to do the latter, but we also need to examine whether our political beliefs are really “Christian” and more importantly, hold the true Gospel and its bearer, the Church, in their proper place. With that said, I hope to address both some history and some thoughts on Christian politics.

If by “Christian nation” one simply means that America currently is and has been predominately filled with Christians, then this post could end here and there wouldn’t be so many books about it. What many conservative Christians mean by “Christian nation” is that America, from its founding, was built on Christian principles by men who were Christians and is therefore a Christian nation. First, let’s look to whether the Founding Fathers were Christians. According to some statistics I found, of the first 6 presidents, 5 were Unitarian or Deist. In case you are unaware what Unitarians and Deists are, they’re not Christians. Both held morality and ethics as the chief end of religion and that God, though real, was not involved in the affairs of this world. A common name for the Deist conception of God is “The Great Clockmaker” in the sense that God created the universe by “winding it up” and then left it to tick according to natural law. Obviously, this is not the Biblical picture of God and Thomas Jefferson was so committed to this view that he revised Scripture by removing all references to the miraculous, leaving only “Christian ethics”, thus creating what is called the Jefferson Bible. Unitarians are by definition not Trinitarians; they deny the Trinity and instead hold God as a single person along with a host of other heresies including a denial of the deity of Christ.

So if many (maybe most, but not all) of our Founding Fathers held to views along the Deist and/or Unitarian lines, then why is it so easy for many of us to see them as orthodox brothers in Christ set on establishing a nation to encourage Christianity? The answer, I think, is a lack of understanding both of Enlightenment philosophy and the Gospel of Christ. What makes matters most confusing is the abundance of quotes we have from them in which they proclaim themselves to be Christians (Unitarians to this day label themselves Christians), followers of Christ, believers in God, etc. I found a website called www.faithofourfathers.net which contains a collection of quotes from many of the Fathers attempting to prove their Christianity. Many of them, on the surface, appear quite Biblical, but closer examination exposes something otherwise. Thomas Jefferson said he supported “the general precepts of Jesus” and was a “disciple of the doctrines of Jesus” and Noah Webster claimed that the basis of education was “the principles of Christianity”. When considering these quotes, ponder the fact that a key tenet of Unitarianism is that the life of Jesus “is the exemplar model for living one’s own life”.

So the questions for us are: Do “Christian precepts” constitute Christianity? Is Jesus our “exemplar model” for life?

Biblically speaking, another term for “Christian precepts” is the Law and considering many of the Founders understood Christianity as primarily morality, this would make sense. But, again, does the Law lie at the foundation of Christianity? No. The Gospel is that every human being enters this world with Adam as his mediator inheriting his rebellious nature and in exercising this sinful nature in sin, is therefore abhorrent to the Holy God and will suffer the punishment of his lawlessness for eternity. But God, in his infinite mercy, sent his only Son Jesus as the second Adam, to fulfill the Law that all of us break and none of us keep, and stand as the mediator of the Elect, his flock, before God where he declares us righteous. The reward for this imputed righteousness is citizenship in the Church, which will one day culminate in the Coming of Christ where we will live in the New Eden for eternity.

Unfortunately, many Christians in America do not understand this beautiful Gospel today. Studies have been conducted to discover the true beliefs of evangelicals and the results of one made the researcher coin a term for what many American Christian young people really believed. The term was “moralistic therapeutic deism” which was defined by beliefs like: “1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

You may see where I am going with this. If many Christians in America actually hold Deist beliefs, then when looking upon the Founding Fathers who, in practice, share their belief that Christianity is “being good”, they will see them as brothers in Christ. The problem is that anyone who holds that salvation comes by Law doesn’t see Christ for the Savior that he is. Jesus is not first our exemplar, not first our role model (this is the heresy of Pelagianism), he is primarily the God-Man that received all the blazing wrath meant for us miserable offenders who in ourselves, could never acquire merits for salvation in the eyes of a Holy God.

So, is America a Christian nation? Yes, in the sense that it is built on some Biblical principles such as the dignity of the individual as a bearer of the Imago Dei But America is also heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, in my opinion, more so than Christianity. Again, as I have hopefully expressed, Biblical principles do not constitute Christianity. As Matthew 7:21 indicates, there will be many followers of “Christian precepts” who will be told, “Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness”. That is a sad and painfully ironic end to those who seek salvation by law to in the end by “workers of lawlessness”. The fact is that the only polity that is truly “Christian” is the Church, the Ekklesia, the Bearer of the true Gospel of Christ Jesus.

Quotes:
www.faithofourfathers.net
www.wikipedia.com (Unitarianism)
http://www.christianpost.com/Opinion/Columns/2005/04/moralistic-therapeutic-deism-the-new-american-religion-18/index.html

Juris Naturalism

Hello Everyone,

After receiving questions from a few curious friends and family as to the meaning of my facebook political label of “Juris Naturalist”, I think it necessary to expound on the reasoning behind it and make it public. I put a lot of thought into my selection of this label and consequently, this post will be a bit long. But, all my notes end up being long so it shouldn’t too much of a surprise.

The political label “Juris Naturalist” was prevalent during the time of the Founding among Enlightenment thinkers. I heard about the idea from I book I read by a guy named Richard Maybury called “Are you Liberal, Conservative, or Confused?”. It is a combination of “Juris” which is Latin for “law” and “natural”. So “Juris Naturalist” is a believer in natural law. How that applies to political theory will be explained later. If it helps at all, I could label myself “Classical Liberal” and mean the same thing but that carries a modern connotation I obviously don’t want.

The reason I call myself that is because I think that “Conservative”, even though it technically defines me in its historical definition, also carries modern connotations. Unfortunately, what is now often considered “conservative”, in my opinion, isn’t and therefore can no longer adequately define me.

That book I mentioned earlier was really influential in this whole thought process. The basic premise (which I agree with) is that today, both liberals and conservatives are “statist” (state-ist) in the sense that they both want to use the state to encroach on the lives of innocent citizens and/or achieve their agendas, they merely disagree on the areas on which to encroach. Liberals pursue social freedom (homosexuality, abortion, etc) but want economic encroachment (income redistribution, high taxes). What has become standard conservative rhetoric today is the flip flop; they generally won’t touch your money (as much), but they want social encroachment (FCC fines for indecency on television, sanctity of marriage laws, etc). I am not a statist; I think there are only a few roles the state should fulfill. These roles are really to, while bearing their God-given sword, ensure that the lives, liberties, and happy pursuits of innocent, respectable citizens are protected from theft and injury at home and invasion from abroad. Everything else should be left up to individual initiative and the private sector that the individuals sustain.

To put a Juris Naturalist on the standard political spectrum, think of like this:

Liberals———————————-Moderates————-————Conservatives
Social Freedom—————–Social Encroachment——Social Encroachment
Economic Encroachment—Economic Encroachment—Economic Freedom

—————————————-Juris Naturalist—————-—————–
—————————————-Social Freedom——————-————–
—————————————Economic Freedom——————-———–

The ideology on which this idea of freedom both social and economic rests on the belief that people are fundamentally both rational and moral and therefore need no assistance living their lives. 

Now, this is where I depart from the Enlightenment humanists that developed this idea. The Enlightenment thinkers believed in the basic goodness of the individual, that reason, if left alone, would facilitate a good society without the help of the state, or the Church for that matter. I am a Christian who believes in the total depravity of man. Consequently, I go a step beyond the original Juris Naturalists by claiming that for a society to operate justly and morally and live their freedom responsibly, it must be being redeemed. The only entity that can truly redeem culture and progress and/or sustain it’s morality is the Church. No overturning of Roe v. Wade, no reinstitution of prayer in schools, no prohibition of immorality on TV, anything, will bring about true redemption of culture except the Gospel which is possessed and proclaimed only by the true Church. 

I feel that the Biblical ecclesiology (study of the Church), sociology, and its ideals of justice and equity fit best with the Classical Liberal or Juris Naturalist position because this ideology leaves social progress and influence out of the hands of the state. Why is the state not the proper place to rest these responsibilities? The answer is rather simple. Government = Force and the power to use it. I don’t mean to say that with negative connotations implied. Scripture is clear that all governments are instituted by God for the reason of temporarily managing a fallen world that contains many members far out from under even common grace. That, at times, requires the use of a forceful sword. However, it is out of this fallen world that the leaders of government necessarily come. The power to rule over others is an enticing fruit and abuses of it are all too easy. History nods to this fact. We all are familiar with that timeless adage of Burke “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The founders of this country, most if not all of them subscribers to the Classical Liberal position, understood the easy road to tyranny and subsequently and intentionally devised a government so inefficient and self-refuting that no one man or body of men could wield the whole of its power. I got that line about the intentional inefficiency of America from that book; I’m not that clever. 

Even though I would disagree with the humanistic coiners of this idea on their ideas concerning the nature of man, the merger of Biblical ecclesiology and Juris Naturalism is becoming, in my mind, to be quite a fulfilling and great system. Due to the established norm of statism in our culture, even we Christians have succumbed to shirking our Biblically-mandated charge to by preaching the Gospel, alleviate not only the spiritual death the unregenerate remain, but also be transformed by it ourselves thereby giving us a passion to also alleviate tangible and current suffering in our surroundings. Instead, we have grown lazy while the state incompetently tries to fulfill a role it was never meant to have. 

There you have it. There are some implications that I have made based on this still new idea concerning Conservative Evangelicalism and their goals, and other things. Some of these are different from what I’ve thought in the past but yet I feel that I have made a move in a more correct direction, Biblically, politically, and philosophically.

Thanks for reading all that.

Feel free to reply with any questions you may have or just read it and move along; either way is fine with me.

Have a great night,

Caleb

Ghandi’s Vast Misunderstanding…

Hello Everyone,

I have been pondering this idea in my head for some time now, but with a recent reminder (as in a few minutes ago), I shall now act on this thought and make it tangible.

Ok, so there is a rather popular quote that I have seen on a couple students’ quote sections on Facebook. It belongs to Mahatma Ghandi and it states: 

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. … “ 

Now upon reading this quote for the first time, several thoughts began to swirl in my head. The first one was concerning the apparent motivation and statement the individuals who posted the quote. Why is this quote so popular? To ensure that it really was popular, and that I hadn’t just randomly stumbled upon some people who posted it, I googled the quote to see what came up. After committing google, a vast plethora of stories, blogs, and even sermons resulted. Again, I asked, “Why do Christians like to utilize these words as much as they do?” Frankly, why would Christians ever consult the words of any person belonging to a pagan religion, thereby in complete rebellion against God, no matter how historically monumental, for the purpose of acquiring insight into the proper practice of believers? Who are they to have any clue? Putting the quote within the context of other religious citations, it became clear that the reason these individuals and the numerous Christians on the web liked the quote so much was because it made the statement of: “See, we Christians are SO hypocritical and so unlike Jesus that even a pagan Hindu can tell the difference. This is evidence that we need to shape up!” 

As I pondered the quote and the assumptions behind its popularity, I became disappointed at the fallacy the rested at the foundation. It is no surprise that Ghandi uttered those words and frankly, no one should stand in awe as if they’ve been exposed to some seemingly enlightened truth. Ghandi, belonging to the rest of the false religions in the world, fundamentally tried to achieve salvation by his own doing (and granted, he seemed to be pretty good at it). It shouldn’t be a revelation that, as he looked upon Christianity, all he saw were a bunch of people who were hopelessly incompetent in the imitation of their Savior.

Did you catch that? The reason he spoke those words were because when he surveyed the Church, he saw incompetence in the imitation of Christ. Now, in most cases, this quote is used as a source of conviction, a “shame on you, Christians”, if you will. We Christians, after being shown how “unlike your Christ” we are, are supposed to fall on our knees and exclaim, “O Most Merciful Father, please forgive us for not being as skilled as we should be in acting like Your Son, Jesus Christ! We confess that our manifold incompetence has produced doubting eyes in unbelievers!”

Hmm…

At what point, in any part of history, have true Christians claimed that they were “like their Christ”? Since when has the imitation of our Savior been the foundation of our glorious religion? The proper response to Ghandi’s quote or the numberless excuses of unbelievers for the reason they left the Church (”Christians are a bunch of two-faced hypocrites”) is “You better believe we’re not like our Christ! We actually suffer from hypocrisy from minute to minute!” I am not trying to be sarcastic or light-hearted; believe me, this goes to the heart of what the Gospel is. If the summation of Christianity was, by means of self, an acquisition of skillful imitation of Christ’s holiness, he would not have had reason to die on the cross. In fact, he’d probably have been a lot like Ghandi, a moral and peaceful individual that commanded followers who looked to him as a role model. 

Our response to these accusations of hypocrisy should be ones of agreement; “Yes, I am a hypocrite wholly incapable on my own to ever be like Christ, but God, in his infinite mercy and grace, covered me with the blood of a perfect sacrifice, slain in my stead, and with Christ as my Mediator, I stand righteous before God. God also bestowed upon me the Holy Spirit, the personal engine of sanctification and perseverance. I cling to Christ, and the small bit of Christ-likeness one sees in me is not a result of my success at imitation, but of the progression of sanctification in my life.”

So what of all these fruitless hypocritical Christians? Am I saying that we should excuse un-Christlike behavior on the grounds that “that’s the way we are”? Of course not, there are many “Christians”, especially in America, who still think that their salvation is a matter of gritting it out and imitating Christ. They are destined to fail because not only are they resting on the counterfeit gospel of works, but they are their own Christ and a wretched one at that.

The only legitimate way nonbelievers can write off our credibility is if while claiming that the gospel is imitation, we remain as worldly as they. This is sad because just as the parent who spoils his child finds only resentment and rebellion, so too do we Christians, reducing Christianity to a subset of the American Dream in hopes of winning followers of “life transformation”, will become the laughingstock of society, toppled by our own incapability to achieve for ourselves what we mandate to others: holiness. 

If one ever uses hypocrisy as means of invalidating the Church, don’t use the moment to get defensive, but use the time to reveal what the true Gospel is, our only hope in Christ Jesus our SAVIOR.

The Dark Knight: A Question of Redemption in a Godless World

As with the majority of Americans, I have seen “The Dark Knight”.  In fact, I am quite possibly in the minority of those who’ve only seen it once, based on some conversations I’ve had.  This movie has made serious waves at not only the box office in the present scheme of things, but in culture as well perhaps on a larger scale.  I wanted to offer my analysis of the ideas and philosophies underlying the film but before I commence doing that, I must offer a disclaimer.  Please do not read this article if you have not yet seen the film; I’d hate to be the one who spoils it for you for I will not even attempt to be general and vague for the sake of those who haven’t seen it.  This is for those who have watched the film so that further thought on it can perhaps be generated.

As with all hero/villain films, ideas of good and evil and their relationship are always involved to some extent or another.  But “The Dark Knight” takes a very different path and approach to the portrayal of evil than its other super-hero predessecors (beyond a mere quantitative path i.e. there’s just simply more evil!). We witness this from the moment the Joker enters the screen.  Pause for a moment to consider how the “typical” hero vs. villain story progresses (my good friend Nathan helped me see this point).  There is always a back story on the villain that often starts with him being a decent guy, even moral, but due to some tragic event, has been pushed over the edge and now has one diabolical end whether it’s revenge or money to fund his “today the city, tomorrow THE WORLD!!” plan.  The point is that villains always have an objective and a reason why they turn to evil to achieve it and it usually involves bitterness towards the system.  

However, as we quickly realize while viewing “The Dark Knight”, the Joker has no story, no self-serving goal per se in terms of power, money, etc.  He comes in wreaking havoc from the start.  He is a complete personification of anarchy, evil, and chaos.  In the words of Alfred the Butler “…some men just want to watch the world burn.”  And burn it does while the Joker is at large.  

An interesting point to note is the way in which he tells the stories regarding his grinning scars.  He never tells the same story twice; what could’ve been a window into his madness is not granted to us for we are left wondering if it’s the first story or any of the stories that’s actually true.  There is nothing objective about the Joker.  Even what could be called his “plan” is ultimately to show that it is only the perception of order and goodness that keeps people living their lives as if there’s order and goodness.  He is anarchy.  He truly believes, and even declares that after someone like him succeeds, “people will eat each other”.  And he seeks to prove that hypothesis with an experiment of the most brutal forms.  He rigs two ferries with bombs giving each boat the detonator to the bomb on the other ship.  The choice is simple: at midnight I, the Joker, will blow both of you up, but if one of you pushes the button and explodes the other before then, I will spare you.  Of course, the citizens won’t do it and the Joker soon after gets arrested, not killed, but arrested… again.  There is no closure, no dramatic demise of the villain (compare the “end” of the Joker to the end of Sauron in Lord of the Rings).  He leaves the movie hanging upside down, cackling with delight. He would be arrested, but again, what kind of closure is that?  What’s to stop him from slipping another cell phone bomb into a neighbor and blowing himself free again?  Nothing.  My friend Nathan had more insight when he said that the implication was that evil doesn’t have a really have a good reason to be here, it just is.  The most good can do against evil is win a temporary battle against it, but not the war.  

With the Joker at least out of the way in person, the film moves on to the redemption.  And this is where a less-than-hopeful and fulfilling redemption is seen.  Previously, I noted the “typical” portrayal of villains. Harvey Dent, who later becomes Two Face, embodies this story.  He was the gleaming knight of Gotham that was going to be the “hero with a face” according to Batman.  But when the fifty-fifty chance of salvation coming to him or Rachel as they sit among wired oil cans falls in his favor, and Rachel, his love, perishes, he concludes once and for all that the universe is amoral and the only morality is chance.  For the remainder of his life, he lives under this pretense as he seeks revenge for Rachel’s death.  He ultimately falls physically soon after he falls morally (somewhat a picture of us in terms of our nature).  The moments following Harvey/Two Face’s death can be likened to the moments after the Fall of Adam and Eve.  Were the truth to be let out, that the seemingly perfect Harvey Dent himself fell to the madness and evil of the Joker, what hope would be left in humanity?  Similarly, what hope in humanity was left after the Fall of Man? None.  The Biblical Story of Redemption is one that proclaims that all hope put in man either individually or collectively, is void.  It is only through the external grace of God in his Son Jesus Christ that any of that former hope can be restored.  

Unfortunately for the characters in “The Dark Knight”, this is not the redemption that is in store, for this is largely a Godless story.  No, the redemption that finally emerges is fundamentally a lie.  Batman takes on the sins and responsibility of Two Face in order that the citizens of Gotham may continue to believe that Harvey Dent died a martyr for the cause of justice and morality.  In the closing words of Batman, he says something to the effect of, “Sometimes, the truth isn’t enough, and people need to have their faith rewarded.”  I won’t go into the issue of the faith and reason exclusivity here, for that is another issue entirely and would break off my point in this post, but ponder the redemption put forth here.  This is the closest thing to a Christ figure one in a Godless world can acquire.  Evil is real, too real at times, and the only way to redeem it is to ensure that good wins, even it involves making up a complete scam.  Sometimes, a few people must work outside the rules in order to maintain them.  People must have their faith in the goodness of man rewarded at all costs, even if their depravity is blatant. 

I loved this movie because it so masterfully put forth redemption from the lens of the Godless.  There will always be a passion for good to conquer evil; it is the eschatological yearning that all humans, craving the ultimate resolution of the universe, possess.  The Dark Knight tries to portray this resolution, and unfortunately, leaves one hanging upside down next to the Joker.

Sources of Thought:  Conversations with Sean Hails and Nathan Knapp

Why I Don’t Listen to Christian Music… Pt. 2

Hello All,

I am returning to you all with part two of my blog series indicting the Contemporary Christian Music industry. The first order of business today is to prove that it is most certainly an industry and a market, and this market indeed has a product to sell. Despite the evangelical subculture’s rather blind insistence that it is an outlet of the Gospel and one of the most effective, relevant means of witnessing to culture we have, it is in reality about getting “more creative about the products they deliver and the ways they deliver them“. That was a quote from an article from CCM magazine’s website, an article that I will be referring back to in this post. In the article, Charlie Peacock, a man who’s been as deep in the industry as one can get, writes about the future of CCM. This future was less than bright. In his words, “The music business, Christian and otherwise, has been a wealth-creation mechanism for a small, elite group of executives, songwriters, producers and artists.” In regards to the treatment of the goal of true art and beauty, he says, “Unfortunately, the majority of the recordings created over the last 35+ years were “youth targeted” mainstream music knock-offs at their conception and designed to get past a host of gatekeepers with agendas other than the promotion of good music.“

This is all that is needed for this post in the realm of citations. As a side-bar disclaimer, for those who are wondering what exactly I listen to, this problem is also existent in the “secular” music industry. Music is not an art form in either market today; it is instead a product that is more dependent on the general sound, look, and attitude that some marketing exec foresees as the best persona.

That is the reality of what the CCM industry has become, granted, I do believe that it was not originally intended to be that way. But let’s instead focus more on what the average evangelical thinks CCM is all about. It was hinted in one of the previous quotes, that CCM was made to be “youth targeted” mainstream music knock-offs. This is the ideological goal that the promoters of CCM believe in. It is an evangelical tool that supposedly enables the Christian subculture to “meet teens where they’re at” and “speak to them in their own language”. However, the actual propagation of the Gospel complete with the truths of sin and redemption are slowly being replaced with that which is “Positive. Encouraging. K-Love” (wish I could say that Truth is always positive and encouraging). But that is another issue. Back to the beliefs behind the industry. All this stems from a false belief in cultural dualism which believes that there’s a distinct “secular” world and “sacred” world. Now, don’t get me wrong, as a growing believer in covenant theology, I definitely appreciate the existence of the covenant community in Christ, the catholic (little “c” = universal) Church, whatever name you choose. However, that is the Church, this is the evangelical subculture and they are different.

An analogy that might help explain this distinction better is this: Imagine that the Church is a castle and the surrounding land is culture. In this circumstance, the Church can directly engage culture with Truth and nurture truly Christian beauty by creating just as our Creator did. However, imagine installing a 10 mile-wide moat in between the castle and the lands, and this is the evangelical subculture. In America, we Christians get to live in a world complete with everything imaginable with a “Christian” label slapped onto it. We have our own music, our own t-shirts, our own GodTube, our own movies, our own books contained in our own bookstores, ad nauseam. This is supposed to be the best way to convert America? By making knock-offs of everything? By selling “Abreadcrumb and Fish” t-shirts as a “cool” alternative to Abercrombie?

I doubt it. No, besides the music execs who really know it’s all about the money, CCM is about Christian coziness. It’s about constructing a subcultural environment where mediocrity is produced, and subsequently heralded. While we blindly either absorb the continuous drone of CCM, or think that it is the only outlet in which true Christians make music, irony slams us hard.  In striving to be relevant, we are instead becoming disposable.

If a band really wanted to impact culture, why in the world would they choose a path beginning with building a fan-base through youth group shows with the hope of getting signed to Word, Forefront, or Sparrow, and getting their songs on Air1 or K-Love? The only way that could effectively witness is if some unbeliever in their right mind would actually choose to listen to CCM of their own accord. No, this path is a path within a secure, cozy, bubble where an artist will be cuddled even when talent is absent, because hey, “at least they’re a Christian band”.  Or as Derek Webb, singer/songwriter and former member of Caedmon’s Call, says in a manner better than I:

“Right now in the music world, the “marketplace and town squares” is the Billboard Top 200. Yet you see few Christian artists really working hard enough and doing good enough art to be in that bigger worldview conversation that’s happening. Instead you see them sort of relegated to this kind of meaningless little Christian chart, well it’s like since we’re not good enough to compete with the real music, the real general market music, the big worldview discussions happening. We’re going to have our own awards ceremonies, the Dove Awards, or our little radio stations, our own little charts, and our own little world to make ourselves feel significant because ultimately the art we’re making just isn’t earning ourselves a seat at the table to really communicate what we believe by way of great art.”

If a Christian artist truly is talented and bent on impact, then I say get out there and prove it by being the best without the crutches of CCM. Create beauty, answer the world’s questions with your lyrics as you continually improve in your poetry.  The solution to this problem is not an easy one, but a solution does in fact exist.  I agree wholeheartedly with these words of Derek Webb, and I’ll leave you and close this series with them.

“I think it’d be a great thing to see the whole Christian music industry go away, and have to see all these so-called Christian artists kind of scatter and find for themselves a place to make music in the real world, or discover that if they’re not good enough to make it, maybe someone’s been enabling them for some years by allowing them to have a career in Christian music when they couldn’t have a music career outside of it.”

Citations:  CCM Magazine Website, Patrol Magazine

A Venue at which to Enjoy Life…

Hello All,

This post is for those of the Oklahoma City persuasion for I have a place that you need to experience.  Beware, if dark chocolate is too “bitter” for you and your idea of a good coffee beverage is a white chocolate mocha with room for cream, then this place is no use to you.  But if you’re prone to indulge in traditional, authentic espresso in its various forms coupled with amazing chocolate whether truffles or anything else, then I urge you to head over to roughly 50th and Western and experience Coco Flow.  I’ve been there twice and it is amazing to say the least.  It’s linked over there on the right if you want more info.

Enjoy!

Caleb

Why I Don’t Listen to Christian Music… Pt. 1

Hello All,

I have always been musical and have consequently loved to listen to those truly blessed with talent. The journey of my musical tastes has been a long one with several changes usually resulting from me getting bored with a particular genre. From the earliest times of my musical and artistic awareness to a couple years ago, I remained within the realm of what is commonly known as “CCM” or “Contemporary Christian Music”. Granted, I was usually within the harder world of Christian rock, punk, emo, hardcore, screamo, metal (I hope you’re grasping the absurdity already).

However, there was another journey that was happening in my life, and it was the journey from Arminianism towards the truth of Reformed orthodox theology. The more I learned, the more comprehensive and effectual these new ideas became. Eventually, orthodoxy began intruding on what I had established as the only way of looking at music and art in general. Christian music began to have a suspicious odor. Something was wrong. Was it the seeming lack of talent, originality, and creativity? Or was it the ideology of its promoters in radio and in the evangelical subculture?

Two years of a mental civil war on this issue has been resolved. Of course, I have not listened to Christian music in really any form in two years. Let me pause for a second so I can define my terms. For the purpose of this post, I will define Christian music as the collection of artists that are marketed within the mainstream Christian subculture. In other words, any band/artist you regularly hear on stations such as K-Love or Air1, or see featured in CCM magazines or on the Dove Awards is a part of Christian music.

There are two fallacies behind the existence of Christian music. Something that will always be held on this blog is that there are beliefs and presuppositions behind everything. Why did such a firmly established subculture complete with a Christian “version” to seemingly every secular genre come into being?

To answer this question, we must go back a ways into the golden years of Christian art. In earlier times of Western Civilization, Christians were the most talented artists in their day. Listen to Beethoven, stand in awe in front of a Rembrandt, Christians were artists. We have reason to be. As image-bearers of God, we exercise that nature to its fullest when we create.  Whether the beautiful orchestration of sound, the detailed, meticulous strokes on a canvas, or the planning of a skyscraper, we are closest to our Creator when we create things. We, as Christians, should have a drive to create the most beautiful of all art because we are striving to glorify the Master Artisan. So to be frank, with a heritage like that, why are we now so lame at art?

The reason is because during the great exodus out of culture the American Church decided to undergo, art lost its true purpose. Surrounded by the rebellious art of the 20th Century, a venture into the world of art was a walk into the valley of the shadow of death for the pious Christian. After awhile, some brave souls burned with a desire to reclaim the lost culture, but clouded by man-centered, semi-Pelagian theology, they sought to take the elements of secular culture (art, music, film, etc) and give it a “Christian” makeover, assuming that would be the most effective way to bring culture back into Christendom. We still see this in the perpetual desire to be “relevant” and “dynamic”. Art became just one more tool in the pragmatic toolbox of gimmicks to woo society into the Church. What was lost in this change? Beauty.

As the title hints, this is a Part One. In the following posts, I will make the case that Christian music has been a key catalyst in the increasing isolation and solidification of the Christian subculture. Also, I will attempt to expose the utter irony in the fact that in striving to be relevant and engaging by offering “Christian alternatives” to the greats of modern art, we are becoming more and more disposable and will continue to not be taken seriously in art. Worse, there is an idea in our culture that is becoming popular which is that Christianity is a hindrance to art. We must seek to reclaim our rich heritage as those with the highest obligation to beauty. More on the pitfalls of Christian music to come.

Thanks for reading

Caleb

Credits:  Conversations with Nathan Carr, Stewart Clem, Nathan Knapp, articles from Patrol Magazine, Image Journal.

Sites worth Your Eyes…

Hey guys,

I thought I’d elaborate more on some of the links I have over there on the right.  First off, The Indie Literati is a site that on which I am a co-contributor.  It is ran mostly by a guy named Nathan Knapp, and it features the best of the best in the indie music scene.  The guy knows good music when he hears it, so he’s credible.

The Indie Literati

Beauty Hurts…

Hello All,

I just wanted to give you all a link to an article by Gregory Wolfe, editor of Image Journal (a journal exploring Christian beauty) entitled The Wound of Beauty.  It was brought up in a discussion with some friends of mine last night and in all honesty, I’m still wading through it.  Thought I’d join you in the wading.

Here’s the link

Have a good one,

Caleb

A Preview at Upcoming Topics

Hello All,

There will be a series of posts pertaining to my abandonment of Christian music (CCM) and other elements of the evangelical subculture.  But to get you all in the mood and frame of mind, I’m linking an article from over at Patrol Magazine, a music and culture magazine bent on discovering true inspiration.  It started out as a project to seriously and objectively review CCM’s latest “artists”.  

As you all may know, CCM ended their thirty-year old print magazine in favor of an all-online version.  They’re even changing their name from Contemporary Christian Music, to Christ. Community. Music.  The guys over at Patrol, along with me, are convinced:  CCM is dying, and they’re trying desperately to live in a new culture.

Here’s the article

Enjoy

Caleb