Archive for the 'Dwayna' Category

I’ll first admit I’m unfamiliar with CRM Leadership. But a reading of their belief statement shows they are Trinitarian, hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, the Deity of Christ (and his Virgin Birth). They believe man is sinful and apart from faith in Christ will suffer an eternity separated from God. The primary purpose of the church, according to CRM, is to worship God, build up believers, and share the Gospel… so… they fit nicely with all the major tenants of the historic orthodox faith, right?

Not according to Dwayna Litz and CRN who tie them to Satanism – through one amazing leap of non sequitur logic.

Given CRM’s thoroughly biblical orthodox belief statement what does Dwayna and CRN draw on to make the connection? A CRM Leadership video showing their primary ministry using the theme of “One Thing.” The use of the phrase “one thing” as a repeating tag line, and probably worse, the song “One Love” by U2 as a background accompaniment are the offending acts.

According to Dwayna: “The Satanists have a favorite saying at Venice Beach. Guess what it is? ‘One Love’ (just like the song depicts in the Christian, emergent video).” And that’s the totality of her argument… and even that statement is undocumented. So, since the Satanists of Venice Beach use the phrase, it’s… I can’t even type it the logic is so incredulous. What power Dwayna gives these Satanists – the very power to affect a word’s ontological meaning.

Someone at CRN added a bit of commentary… too bad it lacks cogent logic as well. As usual, the commentator lifts a couple lines out of context and blasts them saying Satanists and Buddhists would love their inclusiveness. They choose to exclude the phrases “…with one purpose, the heath and effectiveness of the church” and “…no one should live in despair, not when Jesus Christ has come.” Yeah, that should sit pretty well with Satanists and Buddhists – healthy effective churches spreading the hope of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, the CRN commentator then makes an outlandish and unsubstantiated statement – the word “Hell” will never be mentioned. I wonder how they know this? Doesn’t matter that CRM clearly defines that those apart from Christ face an eternity separated from God.

I wonder why they ignore those phrases; I wonder why they pick and choose sound bites to create a false impression – most likely because it would not fit the argument.

Their motto could be, “If a quote does not fit, then the quote we will clip!”

  • Share/Bookmark

Issue: Music as a neutral element that can be used for worship

Slice/CRN take: Dwayna, from “Music is not Amoral

Consider these points from Dan Lucarini, former Contemporary Christian Worship leader:

“…I do not trust the argument that all music is or can be good, because of the biblical record. The first musical reference in the entire Bible is not in Psalms or Chronicles, as many believe. It is not in the stories of David or the song of Moses. The first mention of music is found very early in Genesis 4:21, where we are introduced to Jubal, the father of all musicians: ‘He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute.’ Our modern band and orchestra instruments can probably be traced to the handiwork of Jubal and his descendants.Furthermore, the first musician named in the Bible was a direct descendant of Cain, whom God had judged so severely, because he used his own personal [p]references in worship! Ponder that for a moment.

God told Cain that his personal style of worship was unacceptable, because it violated the specific rules given by God. Cain was infuriated with this rejection and extremely jealous that God accepted  his brother, Abel’s, worship. Cain murdered Abel and was banished from the presence of the Lord and His family.Cain’s descendants continued to disobey God. They were so wicked that when they intermarried with the line of Seth, God decided to destroy them with the Flood. This was the heritage and environment of Jubal…I also recommend a diligent study of 1 Chronicles 15 and 16 where David organized the musical structure of temple worship. This will help us to understand how a fallible man can become acceptable to  God as a music minister before Him, trusted to choose the music and the instruments wisely.”

[Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement, Lucarini, pp. 93, 133; Evangelical Press] [emphasis hers]

My Take:

I suppose you can twist scripture to say a whole lot of things, but this not only takes the cake, but it then tries to eat it, too…  This is another attack on the Third Commandment, trying to make our preferences into “God’s preferences”.

So, let’s see:

  1. Jubal is the first musician in the Bible, who was the ‘father of all those who play the harp and flute’.
  2. Jubal was decended from Cain, who was rejected by God for “using his own personal [p]references in worship”. [This is certainly a huge stretch in Biblical interpretation, far beyond Rick Warren's stretches in interpretation in the Purpose Driven Life that his detractors gnash about ad naseum.  The remainder of the exposition of Genesis 4 is also a bit of a stretch in interpretation, but hey, Dwayna and Lucarini are on their side, so they can be given a pass...]
  3. “Our modern band and orchestra instruments can probably be traced to the handiwork of Jubal and his decendents.”  [I was kind of thinking that Jubal and his decendents were either a) wiped out in the flood; b) ancestors of Noah; c) ancestors of Noah's wife or his son's wives.  Since we don't have Jubal's geneology to know if all of us or a third of us or none of us are related to him, I will have to assume this is a lame attempt at unsupported hyperbole toward whatever instruments/music Dwayna/Lucarini don't like...]
  4. David is then used as the example for how to choose music and instruments.  [Wasn't David's key instrument the harp (1 Sam 16:18)?  Isn't one of his Psalms (#5) written for flute accompanyment?  Didn't he know that *shudder* Jubal was the 'father of all those who play the harp and flute'?  What was he thinking?!?!?]

I think Dwayna and Dan just need a good therapist, and need to leave the church alone until they grow up a bit and realize that just because something isn’t their preference doesn’t make it displeasing to God.

God is the creator of everything, including music, and as such, it can – and should – be used to worship Him, in any musical style that is acceptable to the church community worshipping Him.  Even if it includes harps, flutes, drums, guitars or an organ…

  • Share/Bookmark

Sometimes people ask me why I feel the webpage formerly known as Slice of Laodicea is so dangerous. Today is a perfect example. I’ve been traveling the last few days so “today” may not actually be today but when I got home tonight I checked my email, scanned a few pages and then went over to CRN. Chris Rosebrough has an excellent post up on the whole “Lost Tomb of Jesus” debacle.

But then there’s this post by Dwayna. I had to read it five times to figure out what she was trying to say. By the way, Ms Lutz if you would like to email me and tell me what it is you’re saying I’d be thrilled. If I read your take correctly, Mosaic is Satanistic because they use things that God created as core values? You cite the “father of Satanism” as evidence?

This is silly. It’s beyond ludicrous. I know a guy who wrote a book about the ability to move out of your body around the world. It doesn’t make it fact.
But let’s be charitable and assume that what he wrote is true. Does that mean that the Church can’t use those elements? Do the Satanist suddenly get all proprietary rights to those elements? In fact, should we be surprised that Satan counterfeits something that God created and called good? I’m used to reading posts over there and scratching my head but this is a new low.

Beyond a new low, it is dangerous because people will read it and see it next to a Chris Rosebrough post and think it is done with the same scholarship when obviously it is not. It reminds me of a truth about a little leaven ruining a whole batch. The problem here is the leaven isn’t little.

  • Share/Bookmark

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!!!*** 

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…

  • Share/Bookmark