UPDATE: Slice/CRN Discussion: Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?
Issue: Music that is suitable for worship.
CRN’s Take: Basically, “if there’s anyone currently living who was alive when it was written, it is too new to be used in worship services.” [It should be noted, though, that Chris P. has avoided wading into this topic area when Ingrid (or now, Dwayna) and past contributors have taken this hard of a stance.] Some contributors, like Ingrid, have gone out of their way to suggest that certain instrumentation is improper for worship (drums, bass guitar), while others have taken a slightly softer stance. Most recently, Dwayna wrote,
“Our message is not like the world’s, and our music should not be like the world’s. The hymns packed with theology are a delight to sing indebted to such a Savior, and our God is exciting to know! He does not need “updating†and neither does the message or music.
***UPDATE: My quoted statment above was strictly hyperbole and misrepresented Slice/CRN’s view on the subject. Ingrid has posted a correction below – please read it!!!***Â
My Take: Musical style is a neutral cultural element which can be used to glorify God and used in worship of Him, whether it is an ancient hymn, like “Be Thou My Vision”, a later hymn by Isaac Watts, a mid-20th century song like “How Great Thou Art” or a modern worship hymn, like “Indescribable” or “In Christ Alone”. Because the musical and style is not ‘the point’ of worship, it should not detract from bringing the body to a deep and honest worship of its Creator. As such, it should best fit the congregation singing it – which can be a tricky balancing act. It also, most importantly, needs theologically sound lyrics which bring our thoughts in worship of God and not just our emotions and our bodies.
I am fortunate to go to a larger church that has found a way to balance this in our worship services. We have a 8:00 “Classic” worship service with hymns led with piano and organ instrumentation; a 9:30 “Contemporary” worship service with a mix of hymns and contemporary worship music with orchestra and/or choir instrumentation; and a 11:00 “Modern” worship service with predominantly modern worship music (Tomlin, Crowder, Charlie Hall, Lincoln Brewster, etc.).
In the latter two services, the hymns that are used generally are those which do not use (or over-use) King James English, because we believe that for those who come to these services, the use of flowery, archaic language feels inauthentic and detracts from worship, rather than showing reverence.
To claim that one type/style of music as superior is to completely miss the point. Unfortunately, both CRN and some of its idols, like Johnnie Mac, tend to actively pursue missing the point…
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
28 Comments(+Add)
Chris,
You have written something completely untrue. Where do you get the idea that I said if we were living when it was written, it shouldn’t be used in church? Do you ever fact check before you publish? My sister Lisa has written a number of contemporary Christian songs, meaning written in my life time, which she and her husband and the choir at their church have used. My grandfather wrote Christian songs, one of which was used by the Billy Graham crusade choir. I have never said that currently written music is wrong for the church. Music shouldn’t be judged by when it’s written, but rather its spiritual content and musical excellence. My husband has played trumpet professionally for nearly 30 years in our city (he’s 48) and has played in every kind of ensemble you can imagine through the years. He has been a top classical player in the city as well as jazz ensemble player in the past. He’s played with Winton Marsalis at the New York Brass Conference and twice won the International Trumpet Solo competition. He has a high standard for whatever music he is playing and he comes to his views on sacred music with the same views. I also studied piano for 9 years at the Wisconsin Conservatory, and we both believe that there are clear tandards for excellence. This is even more so when music is used in worship. There is a hymn that says, “of the best which thou hast given, earth and heaven render thee.” That’s what we both feel about music used in the worship of a holy God. You cannot call fanny shaking music reverent, no matter how you spin it. There is a difference between flesh and spirit and music reflects that. That’s why the drumming used in a voodoo ceremony would be out of line at a Christian worship service, for example. It conjures up a completely different spirit. Please stop attributing things to me that I have never said. Again, it isn’t the era in which music is written that matters, it’s the spiritual and yes, musical content that determines its propriety in worship of the Almighty. Music carries as much of a spirit with it as the words do. If the music is at war with the lyrics, you have chaos and confusion, and God is not the author of that.
Can I start an “amen chorus” on this blog?
This narrow view that Slice/CRN takes to “appropriate” worship music doesn’t take into account the many forms of worship that will take place in other countries and recently-reached people groups across the globe.
God desires that ALL nations worship and bring glory to Him. Each nation, tribe, and tongue is going to have a different take on how that worship is expressed. Each person, having a unique testimony to God’s glory will express their worship of God in slightly different ways — the multiple ways of worship bring a fullness and depth of worship that I believe God desires of his people. I know I can’t be arrogant enough to assume that my preferred worship style is the appropriate worship style of ALL believers.
I guess that’s why I disagree with the typical stance on worship that Slice/CRN holds — it’s them being “confident in their own righteousness and looking down on everyone else” – basically the position the Pharisee took in Luke 18.
Ingrid,
Thank you for your clarification. I fully admit that my use of quotes above was completely hyperbole, and I will update the article as such, and point folks to your comment for your unedited view on music.
While I can’t search Slice for specifics, unless you make the archives available, there are some articles from VS which quote some of the views expressed on Slice, like this one and this one, which has extensive passages from Slice on it. There was an article in the last quarter of last year which also dealt with the use of drums in church, and in the comments section one of the approved and moderated comments basically was a condemnation of almost everything written in the past 50 years (which brought “How Great Thou Art” to my mind as one they may have given objection to.) Also, while it was not directly related to Slice, I did lump John MacArthur in with this view based on a couple of his podcasts I’ve listened to, and the one linked to in this article from VS.
As for the use of drums, I just wonder how you would define “drumming used in a voodoo ceremony”, as I’ve never witnessed one. What beats are acceptable, and which are unacceptable?
(In the interest of full disclosure, I currently play in the modern worship service at my church (keyboards), I’ve written music, and of any human in my life, the one who had the most impact on me was Rich Mullins, who I knew personally and loved as a brother and a mentor before even considering his musical talent.)
On a separate note, thank you for coming and correcting me, and you have my apologies for the hyperbole used in my depiction of the description from Slice/CRN. I will now go correct that appropriately.
hehehee she said “fanny” hehehe
For Ingrid’s analysis of “fanny shaking” worship music, listen to this clip, saved a Pomomusings, of a Slicecast from last year:
http://cleave.blogs.com/Music/SLICE.mp3
A partial transcript:
“What you have is them screaming, “hol-eh hol-eh hol-eh.” That’s not the way that the cherubim and seraphim cry out “Holy Holy Holy, Lord God…” That’s an awesome experience. This is not awesome – this is trash. I call this fanny-shaking music. If it makes you want to get up and writhe – that’s a pretty good indication that the flesh is involved.”
Yes, I’m sure the angels will be singing in English. I mean, it would be rude of them not to.
I don’t know – I think most people in churches could use a good fanny shakin’. Whether or not I want to be there to see it, that’s another question altogether.
Well, the gist of my question about acceptable and unacceptable beats really does come down to the crux of disagreement.
The greatest of all commandments is to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. And one way in which love and honor to God is expressed is through worship. The view that worship which engages the body (i.e. our ’strength’) is somehow unholy or sinful is in denial of this very commandment, but has roots in two movements (no pun intended) that have often infiltrated the church.
The first movement is that of gnosticism, which holds tenents in a dualistic system of spirit and flesh, in which that which is of the spirit is good and that which is of the flesh is evil.
The second movement is gnosticism’s step-child, asceticism, which also makes use of such duality.
As for the quote you pulled up, Ray (thank you, btw), if the cherubim and seraphim were seen in a Jewish/mideasten setting BC, chances are that they weren’t in unison nor following any set, discernable pattern – that’s a western innovation of the past 1200-1500 years…
Bottom line is this – when we make our preferences into God’s preferences, we are being legalistic and bringing no glory to Him in doing so. When we make a separation between “spirit” and “flesh” in worship, judging those who disagree accordingly, we are in denial of both the greatest commandment and the second greatest commandment. I’m not willing to do that.
Chris,
I appreciate Ingrid spelling out exactly what her position is. For one thing, it makes me feel better about her personally that she and her family love music. I’m with Martin Luther on that one. Anyone who doesn’t love music is not worth talking to.
If she has a personal feeling that rock music is for barbarians that’s fine. I have a minor in music and I’ve known plenty of “classical snobs” who are wonderful people. Again, my disagreement comes in extending this personal preference to God. I don’t see how someone who is a serious student of the scripture can read psalm 149 and suggest that God doesn’t like drumming. I don’t see how someone can read the account of David dancing naked before the Lord (and the people) and suggest that “rump shaking” is anathema.
Ingrid is of course free to argue for the superiority of the music she loves. She may even have a point. But always with Slice there is a moment where they go too far. In the case of worship, God sees the heart. He simply doesn’t care one way or the other if it “has a good beat and you can dance to it.”
I’m not opposed to drumming. In fact our church uses kettle drums and timpani on every festival Sunday of the church year. But you can believe it isn’t the same kind of drumming as would be found at the club down the street from the church and it wouldn’t be the same drumming used in a jazz piece. Why? We serve a monarch and you don’t come into the presence of a monarch with music that makes you want to shake your groove thing. If you wouldn’t do that for an earthly monarch, why would you do so when it’s the King of Kings we’re talking about? Even the secular court has rules for respecting the presiding judge. You come into a courtroom in a casual and flippant manner, even in clothing, as an attorney and you’ll get bounced for contempt of court.
Chris says, “Bottom line is this – when we make our preferences into God’s preferences, we are being legalistic and bringing no glory to Him in doing so. When we make a separation between “spirit†and “flesh†in worship, judging those who disagree accordingly, we are in denial of both the greatest commandment and the second greatest commandment. I’m not willing to do that. ”
It seems to me like it would be easy to go from one extreme – no dancing of any kind, ever, no music except hymns, ever – to the other extreme – let’s don’t dare speak up when something offends us because it’s what is in the heart that matters. If someone speaks up, they are being legalistic and judgemental.
Are all “bad feelings” about someone else’s worship just opinions? Is there no place for any kind of caution, unease, looking out for one’s brother? Is there no place for a person to think that what someone is doing is dishonoring their God, is causing their brother to stumble?
If we have no boundaries about what is allowed in the flesh in “worship,” what makes us different than the pagans? And how can we assume that people coming into church who have been or are wrapped up in music and dancing that is sexually enticing are going to automatically know that such dancing is not appropriate in church?
People all over the world use their bodies to “worship” their deities. The movements used in worship all over the world may show portrayals of great acts of the deity, such as creating thunder. The movements used in worship can mimic the sex act, or can deliberately be meant to entice men who have come to participate in “worship.” The final culmination of worship is the sex act with some priest/temple worker.
If churches aren’t careful, their “worship” can become more like the worship of pagans than the worship of Christians.
Can dancing be part of worship? Idealistically, yes. Realistically, I think that churches need to be very careful about what they allow. If we have the attitude that it’s just the heart that counts and no one is willing to speak up when something offends them, our worship could end up being no different than pagan worship. Christians cannot just assume that any movement they feel like making, especially in public, is acceptable worship to God.
I find it interesting that so many Christians just want to talk about most dancing as if there could not possibly be anything sexual about it. Non-Christians are often much more honest. A girl could be dancing in church in “worship” in a way that would be enticing to many men, dressed in a way that says, “I dare you not to slobber over my body” and no one will say anything about it. Put the same girl dancing the same moves in a different setting, wearing the same skimpy clothing, and non-Christian (and probably Christian men) won’t hesitate to say what they are thinking.
In my own personal experience I have seen what was supposed to be worship turn into wildness and sensuality. It overwhelmed my spirit. I believed that it deeply grieved the Holy Spirit. That sounds judgemental, I suppose; I believe it with all my heart.
I have been in services where people are supposed to be worshipping God, where they are instead watching and getting excited about the dance moves someone is making. I have been in situations where I simply put my head down, not feeling like I had a choice about it, or where I walked out. I have watched a couple do a performance where they sung about feeling the Holy Spirit being in different parts of their body, shaking that part after each one (yes including the rear).
Simply put, I won’t place my family or myself in a church where “anything goes,” music and dance wise. I think there is something very dangerous about claiming to worship God while dishonoring Him.
Ingrid,
When I walk into a church building, I am not walking into the presence of the King of Kings. To suggest such implies that I have left His presence at some point.
Who created every form and style of music that exists or ever will exist? God had to have – there is nothing new under the sun. However, because of his fallenness, man can and does often subvert creation to evil ends. Does that make the style itself ’sinful’ (or even irreverent), or is it what man has done with it that makes it so?
I have a number of friends who are artists in paper, paint, video and sculpture. I have seen painted works which glorify God – both explicitly and implicitly. I have also seen painted works which are blasphemous, at best. I have seen sculpture which celebrates the Creator, and I have seen sculpture that I cannot believe is displayed in public. I have a very good friend who creates video short projects, a number of which give a beautiful message about the Creator and his creation. On the interent, though, there are thousands of sites with video shorts which would make a sailor blush. It is not the medium which makes something ‘holy’ or ‘profane’. What makes the medium ‘holy’ or ‘profane’ is whether or not it accurately and respectfully gives honor to the One who created all things.
We are ALWAYS in the presence of God, and when we bring worship to Him in song, it should bring us to Him in heart, mind, soul AND strength. Even if it uses a 2-4 beat and a kick-snare that could be used in a similar manner (but different message) in a ’secular’ context.
I have no qualms that you don’t feel you, Ingrid, can bring full worship to God singing songs written by Crowder, Tomlin and Redman and played with guitar, bass, drum and rock organ – OR – that you feel that you are best able to worship with Watts, Calvin, Wesley or with some contemporary songs that are keyboard-driven (rather than rythm-driven). We were all created differently. I am glad that you have a church community that utilizes the latter style.
However, I would have to say that to judge a style you don’t prefer as being “casual” or “flippant” and condemning it as being unacceptable to God is putting yourself into a place you cannot sit, and is where one of my points of contention with you and Slice has been. What you see as ‘casual’ or ‘flippant’ may not be anything of the case – many of the “younger” folks I work with and who attend our services(age 20-40) see authenticity in simple dress and worship with rythm-driven music.
I work in a corporate environment involved with leadership in a Fortune 100 company. Our leaders are finding that in the baby-boom crowd and older, wearing a suit and tie is seen as being respectful to those you are meeting with, especially on formal occasions. With those post-boomers, however, changing the way you dress and adding a suit and/or tie is seen as being ‘fake’ or ‘inauthentic’, and is actually a subtle (or not-so-subtle) are of deceit in putting forth a false front. Are either of these views correct? No, they are messily contextual.
If I were to blast those who desire to worship with a march beat, all the verses, with minimal instrumentation (and in King James English, to boot) while wearing suits & ties or dresses as being ‘phony’ or ‘fake’ because they are singing in stilted language with words they would never use, even in polite conversation, I would be just as guilty as you in this. I have been in those shoes – both ways (I just about died 17 years ago when my college-town church did away with hymnals).
It comes down to a matter of the heart, not a matter of the beat. Just because someone’s heart beats differently than mine in such matters, doesn’t mean that I am superior to them – or that I am inferior to them – when it is an issue of style and not sin…
Chris,
“Who created every form and style of music that exists or ever will exist? God had to have – there is nothing new under the sun. However, because of his fallenness, man can and does often subvert creation to evil ends.”
How do you decide what is form and style that originated with God and what is an evil subversion?
I’m not sure that God wants the credit for every form and style of music that’s been invented, anymore than he wants the credit for all that is called art.
Chris,
By the way I was confused by your reply to my question about whether or not Ken Silva actually said that Rob Bell denied the virgin birth. Did he really say that, did you just infer it, or were you using hyperbole?:).
Amy,
I went back and checked, and an article I was referencing included a letter in it which included the statement that “Rob Bell denies the virgin birth”. I wish I could go back to Slice, because one of the ‘teaser paragraphs’ there, pointing to Apprising, I believed insluced a similar statement.
In that case, I was not using hyperbole, as I also – even upon re-reading Ken’s December article on the subject – would still infer that…
“How do you decide what is form and style that originated with God and what is an evil subversion? ”
I think the general practice of a lot Christians seems to be that it they don’t like it, then it’s evil. That may sound like hyperbole, but I think it’s true. I’ve been in services where I didn’t particularly care for the style of music, but I wouldn’t call it evil. Obviously, if there are vulgar elements and themes in music, it’s not glorifying God. I would be very careful about calling a certain style of worship music evil though.
Also, as far as reverence goes, I would almost go to the extreme of saying that God doesn’t want us to approach Him with some sort of formal decorum. To me, a big part of the point of Jesus coming to earth was to show us that we can approach God. Why did the veil rip in the temple when Jesus was crucified? Those who had been excluded were now invited. Jesus was poor when He ws on earth. He probably sang the peasant songs.
Speaking of music, when Dr. Tom Ascol appeared on the The Mike Corley Program, which Ingrid promoted, one of the filler songs was a David Crowder song. Crowder is quite popular in the emergent movement. So, indirectly, Ingrid was promoting the emergent movement. I love “guilt by association” arguments.
And yes, I did shake my fanny when that song played.
Amy,
To your your other question:
I would first look at scripture, but nothing really comes to mind other than Solomon’s comment that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’, and that through God all things were created.
I would next look to other modes of artistic communication, which might be more clear-cut.
POETRY: Is there any meter/form that is inherently good or evil? Haiku? Limrick? Pentameter? OR – is it the words of the poem and the symbology provided by the author that makes it good or evil?
PAINTING: Is there a form of painting that is inherently good or evil? Pointalism? Abstract? Surrealistic? Or – is it the subject of the painting and the symbology which makes it good or evil?
CREATIVE WRITING: Is there a style or form of writing that is inherently good or evil – or is it the words on the page and the symbology described which determines this?
THEATER: Is there a style of theater/acting that is inherently good or evil? Or, is it the words that the actors speak, the events which are depicted, and the themes which are conveyed that determine this?
As I look at other forms of art, the defining element which can make one good or evil comes down to words and symbols.
I personally detest country music (or at least, most of it). It has everything to do with personal preference, though. The basic form is neutral, but it is the words which determine whether it is ‘Jesus Take the Wheel’ or ‘Down in the Gutter With You’.
In live performance for worship, the visual appearance of those leading and those singing are also something to take into consideration. Humility and ’showiness’ also come into play, and must be appropriate for leading worship.
Modesty is by far the key with dance. I believe that in the art of dance there ARE forms which are suggestive or immodest (at least in public), and are only appropriate in the privacy of a husband and wife.
So, while I’m sure there are a number of styles I personally would not care for, I don’t know that any of them could be called inherently ‘bad’, if the right lyrics and heart were applied.
Chris,
(We can move this discussion to another place if you want.) The author of the letter said, “In a very subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) way, Bell denies the virgin birth, the new birth and a literal hell.”
I haven’t done enough reading of Bell to say whether or not I agree with this. But I would say from the text that you cited from Rob Bell under “Trampolinianity” that Bell at least there gives the impression that the virgin birth isn’t that important .
Also, from watching Rob Bell’s “Revelation” video you cited on VS, I would say that I felt like Rob Bell was “subtly” bringing out questions of inspiration. My impression. (And by the way I don’t have a problem with linking the letters in Revelation to actual churches, events in the first century. I do have a problem with the way Rob Bell seemed to find a first century “match” for practically everything in John’s vision, from horses to white robes to scrolls. . . kind of does away with the possibilities of linking comparisons of Revelation prophecies with OT prophecies.)
One thing I was thinking about when I questioned determining what is style versus an evil subversion, was, for example, some of the things that are called art today. There seems to be a style of “anything is art if you want to call it art,” so we have the artistic exhibition of dead bodies, artistic works of excrement, etc.
I read a lot of art books because I’m spending some of my free time painting. Many of the books keep repeating things like, “There is no wrong way to do it. Whatever you feel is right, is right.”
I don’t know enough about all that is going on with music, but there also seems to be a mindset of “anything is music if you want to call it music” so screaming, and discord as the major element instead of a minor element occurs. Do we call these things style, and say that God invented them, or do we say, they aren’t really music at all?
Anyway certainly the attitude of “Anything is right if it feels right” permeates all aspects of our culture. It’s naive to think that it doesn’t affect Christians at all. I think that it’s sad that many kids today just accept whatever music, art, fashion, etc, is popular today, without really considering whether it has some kind of merit or honors God.
I also find it interesting that sometimes people who aren’t Christians are the ones who will say, for example, about some kinds of dancing, “Why are you doing THAT in church?” while Christians say, “What’s the big deal?”
Well, obviously there are things in the art world that are completely junk and take no real talent. I could see some of that type of thinking affecting churches. My original comment was more in response to those who are against particular styles of music. To take Chris L’s example of Country music for example – I generally hate that style, but there are a lot of Country musicians who are very talented and have spent years developing that talent. I know some people who would automatically dismiss that type of music in a worship setting. Who knows, in certain instances it might make sense.
One thing that I do find offensive in churches is that a lot of churches don’t know how to say “no” to anyone. “Sure will let Sister Susy sing the offertory. Nevermind the fact she can’t sing in pitch if her life depended on it.” That and the fact that I just really hate the canned soundtrack people use for such things. Anyways, that probably not actually a sin, but it’s annoying as heck.
Amy,
On the Revelation thing, Bell is acutally using material directly from research in Asia Minor that Ray VanderLaan uses extensively. In fact, had I just been given a transcript of Bell’s talk on the subject, I would have thought it was someone from the Ephesus Christian dig team or RVL giving the talk.
Have you read any of my posts on the Seven Cities of Revelation (on Fishing), or John’s V-Source on Preterism? These both come from the same angle – that John was first and foremost writing to real people in real churches.
I visited the Seven Cities last year (actually, all but Thyatira), with Western Theological Seminary/Hope College (a CRC-affiliated school), and all of these things were discussed on our visit. The cities, themselves, in the order written, form the Roman mail route documented by Eusebius.
I don’t see how this challenges the notion of ‘inspiration’. If you read the book of Mark, you will notice that as he nears the crucifixion and resurrection that he chooses the events and accentuates them in the same order and form as the coronation of a Caesar – the context being that Caesar is not God – Jesus is! This is the same overarching message John is giving.
This does not do away with linkages to prophecy (like Daniel and Ezekiel). God often fulfils prophecy in patterns. Just because one is fulfilled once, doesn’t mean it won’t be fulfilled again.
In the case of Revelation, the comparisons to the Domitian Games were noted back in the mid-90’s in a number of Christian Archaeology magazines. The buying and selling in the Ephesian agora was also confirmed during one of the digs in Ephesus back in the 80’s, I believe. We talked about it when we were there last year – along with the Nicolatians.
What I found most interesting about Bell’s presentation was that he was giving it, but that the information he was giving was finally in a more public venue than on RVL’s audio files or in Christian archaeology journals. It didn’t even matter that it was Rob – I was just glad more folks were hearing about it.
Too often, I see folks do one of two things with Revelation – avoid it like the plague out of fear/lack of understanding OR maintain an unhealthy deep interest in it, looking to apply all of its prophetic language to current events. I believe that seeing that it held meaning for the people it was written to, and that it contains a message of hope for a people oppressed and that Jesus’ Lordship is demonstrated – point-by-point – as superior to anything in this world. Too many people miss this…
Chris,
I realize that a lot of things that Rob Bell said were historically accurate, and I don’t have a problem with linking parts of John’s warnings to the churches with historical facts.
Being the skeptic that I am, I would want to check his sources before believing the facts to be “facts.” But, for discussion’s sake let’s assume his facts are accurate. In that case, it’s how Rob Bell seems to interpret those facts that concerns me.
I had a problem with feeling like the horses, white robes, unopened scroll, 24 elders, of the heavenly vision had to have some direct correlation to Domitian (do I have the right guy?) I was left wondering if John’s “heavenly vision” just originated from John’s own mind. These are just my impressions.
Looking at this in a different context, what if I went to the book of Zechariah and read about the elements of his visions there – red, brown, white horses, myrtle trees, horns, blacksmiths, filthy clothes changed to new ones, priestly turbans, flying scrolls, woman in a basket, chariots, crowning. Certainly if I studied the history of King Darius reign somewhere I could find some counterpart of almost all of these. Does that mean then, that God gave Zechariah these visions in this form so that he would compare the Holy God to King Darius? I think not. Anyway, as I said, I’m just talking about my impressions, just “thinking out loud” on this.
Amy,
Here’s a couple of references:
http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=2751
http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=5538
http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=11790 (The file “corination” is the Markan parallel of the crucifixion and Caesar coronation another one – I forget which – is almost verbatim what Bell talked about, Domitian parallels and all)
I’m not sure what your hangup is. Why wouldn’t God use something John would have been familiar with (the Domitian games) to convey a message to the people in imagery they would understand. Christians were persecuted because they were “atheists” – they didn’t believe in Domitian as God, and it was completely important to make the point the Jesus is God – not Caesar. Why would is suggest John not being inspired? Why would us finding this parallel suggest that Revelation was something less than the inspired Word of God? It is not just a parallel to a man (Domitian) – it is a parallel to all of the pomp and circumstance used in ceremonty to declare that Domitian was God. Why is it somehow repulsive to you, when taken in the context that its original audience would have understood? I’m just not getting it…
Chris,
You’re jumping way ahead of me. First of all, remember I said I was “thinking out loud.” I haven’t looked at all the documents Rob Bell has looked at, so I don’t know how many of the things he has found that I agree could be considered parallels, without question. I didn’t say anything was repulsive. But I’m not just going to run and accept that someone’s interpretation as correct when I haven’t looked into it myself.
As for why it would suggest John isn’t inspired, what I said was that “I felt like Rob Bell was “subtly†bringing out questions of inspiration. My impression.” I said that, because that’s the way it struck me. Maybe we should just drop this discussion for now.
I remember Ingrid talking about her husband’s skill on the trumpet before, her point being…I’m not sure.
It is important to note that not everyone has the opprotunity to take nine years of piano at a conservatory, nor do they all have the chance to be such a top-notch trumpet player. There can be excellence in far less skilled playing, mistakes and all.
This is a similar argument from people who start implying that all preachers of the gospel must have some incredible seminary/theology degree in order to be capable. This doesn’t even make sense. It’s like a post on my blog about hymns: not everyone everywhere in the world has these opportunities and God uses them as they are. It is a matter of willingness to a) be used in spite of a “lack of credentials” or skill and b) do the best with what God’s given you.
I really do not care for the elitism that lists all the impressive trumpet qualifications in order to make a simple point that could have been made with far fewer words: God asks us to give him our best, in all things, at all times. Period.
There is no need to say that a guy who may not be skilled on the guitar but is the only one willing to play and therefore limits the music to simple choruses that he can handle is a person not doing a good enough job for God.
I don’t know if that was Ingrid’s point or not, but I’ve seen this before on Slice and my understanding of it has been as such.
I think it is so funny that most older hymns (regarded as sacred) were actually old bar songs. I did my undergrad in Christian Music and focused on hymnology (mostly to disprove old ideas). Luther wrote A Mighty Fortress Is Our God to the tune of a popular drinking song. The lyrics were originally so sexually explicit, they would make a whore blush.
Nathan,
Don’t say that too loud. Our friends from that other site would have a heart attack if they heard you. They say that is urban legend.
This conversation sparked a blog posting tonight….all I can say is “Hey, it’s Friday and it was one tough day….”